Allison Likes to Watch Movies and Tell People What is Wrong with Them

Obligatory Oscar Post

2010-03-07T11:05:00.007-05:00

Can someone please tell me why or how Sandra Bullock is nominated for Best Actress and (500) Days Summer is not nominated for one single award?

Seriously. Sandra Bullock.

Even Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is nominated for an Oscar.

If that isn’t proof that an Academy Award is meaningless, I don’t know what is.

I could tell you how things would be different if I were a member of The Academy. But if you have ever read this blog before, then you probably have a good idea of the changes I would make. I could also tell you who I want to win, or who I think will win (there is a BIG difference). That is futile - the nominees I want to win never do.

Instead, let me make a few observations about this year’s nominees.

Best Actress - essentially a throwaway category this year. Who didn’t expect to see Meryl Streep and Helen Mirren among the nominees? I must admit that the only performance nominated for Best Actress that I saw was Carey Mulligan’s in An Education. I didn’t see anything Oscar-worthy there. I’m happy for Precious’ Gabrouey Sidibe. Congratulations on your nomination. But, you’re not going to win. Were there so few leading female roles to choose from that The Academy nominated two “children”? History has shown us that young actors don’t usually win Oscars. Which brings us to Sandra Bullock. After reviewing the other nominees, it seems that The Academy has nominated Bullock to set her up to win the award. Streep has how many Oscars; Mirren just won for The Queen; Mulligan and Sidibe are too young to win. I think Bullock’s nomination is out of pity. The Academy never plans to nominate her again (I don’t care if she stars in the best thing since Citizen Kane, she’s not getting nominated), but this nomination and predicted win will justify The Academy in telling Bullock to go fuck herself in years to come.

Best Supporting Actress.
The only observation I can make about this category is that all nominees but Maggie Gyllenhaal and Mo’Nique are undeserving. Did both Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick need to be nominated? I didn’t think they were that good in Up in the Air. And don’t even get me started on Nine. Just because Penelope Cruz happened to be the best part of that piece of shit does not mean she gets a nomination. Couldn’t The Academy have nominated Diane Kruger for her role as Bridget von Hammersmark in Inglourious Basterds? How about Melanie Laurent as Shosanna Dreyfus?

I don’t really have much to say about the Actor categories. Obviously, they aren’t the men I would nominate, but when are they ever? And I would have nominated Woody Harrelson for his role in Zombieland instead of The Messenger. Yes, I saw both movies and I stand by my opinion.

Let me now focus my attention on the biggest mistake The Academy has ever made (no, not giving Crash Best Picture) - 10 Best Picture nominees. 10!? Why 10? Isn’t that a little excessive?

It’s obvious to me that 10 is too many as The Academy has clearly nominated 5 films that will be considered seriously and 5 that they nominated for the hell of it.

The 5 to be taken seriously (though I don’t agree with some of these) are as follows: Avatar; The Hurt Locker; Inglourious Basterds; A Serious Man; Up in the Air. I could easily write a 25-page thesis on why Avatar should not be nominated for anything, but that would just be a waste of time. Instead, I’ve resorted to prayer. I am praying that any other film wins Best Picture. I would love for Inglourious Basterds to win (I would also love to see Tarantino win Best Director), but I will even be happy if The Blind Side wins. Avatar is the biggest piece of crap I have ever seen.

I understand that every year the people behind animated films complain that they don’t get nominated for Best Picture, but do they deserve to be nominated? I have nothing against animation. I loved Fantastic Mr. Fox and thoroughly enjoyed Up; I don’t think the Best Picture category should be expanded to 10 nominees just to include an animated film (especially when Fantastic Mr. Fox should have been nominated instead of Up). If an animated film is good enough to be a Best Picture contender, then have 4 live action nominees and 1 animated nominee.

I love how serious The Academy takes the technical awards that no one cares about - like Sound Mixing and Makeup. Can anyone tell me off the top of their heads who is nominated for these awards? No. So why not nominate movies that wouldn’t normally be nominated for anything. I graduated from college with a minor in film criticism, and am certain when I say Confessions of a Shopaholic should be nominated for Costume Design.

I am also certain when I say that (500) Days of Summer has been given the biggest “Fuck You” by The Academy in its lack of nominations. Not even Best Original Screenplay or Film Editing. Find me a film that has better editing. Avatar is nominated for Film Editing - it’s almost 3 hours long!!! How was any of that film edited?

It doesn’t really matter who wins or who loses because the films that should be nominated rarely are. I’m pulling for Inglourious Basterds. And I am only watching the ceremony so I can see Eli Roth in a tux.

P.S. - I would like to suggest a Best Ensemble category. The entire cast of Inglourious Basterds is deserving of Oscars, yet only Christoph Waltz is nominated. It would be a little ridiculous to have all Best Supporting Actor nominees be from the same film, but I could get behind that. Just think - if this category existed, The Hangover could be nominated - for an OSCAR! Let's have this category next year!!

Forrest Gump: Fatal Obsession

2010-02-28T09:58:00.003-05:00

In honor of "Can't Get Enough Gump" Week on AMC, they took the liberty of putting a new spin on Forrest Gump.

This trailer is my new favorite thing!

Ever Wonder What Happened to...

2010-02-19T09:52:00.001-05:00

Amy Morton?

Who?

Morton’s star began to slowly rise with a string of made for TV movies in the late 80s and early 90s.

You may best remember Morton from the classic sports film Rookie of the Year as Mary Rowengartner, the floater throwing mom.

You can catch Morton on the silver screen once more in the Oscar nominated Up in the Air.

Kevin Smith vs. SWA

2010-02-17T10:08:00.002-05:00

This Kevin Smith/Southwest Airlines thing is really bothering me.

I understand that the man is fat, but SWA is wrong. He fit in his seat, so what was the problem? And I also think it is really f’ed up what they did to Natali, the girl on Smith’s second flight.

SWA targets fat people and humiliates them as in-flight entertainment. Obviously. Smith fit in his seat. Natali in her seat. And yet Smith was booted from a flight. And Natali was chastised and laughed at by flight attendants. What really infuriates me is that there was no need to do this to Natali at all. (In case you didn’t know: Natali was on Smith’s later flight and instructed to sit in the row Smith was already seated in. The middle seat had been purchased by Smith, and since he fits into one seat the middle seat would be vacant for the entire flight. Yet, Natali was taken aside and told that she would have to move as it wasn’t fair to Smith who had purchased the additional seat. It is also important to note that Natali also fits into one seat.)

Smith has come to terms with the fact that he is too fat to fly ON SWA. And is telling his story because he A) wants SWA to correct their statements and let the world know that he fits into one seat and B) is warning other fat people that SWA allows their employees to humiliate passengers (paying customers) at will.

I know the whole story. I listened to the hour and a half SModcast #106 that Smith and his wife recorded. I read all of the tweets and blog posts from each side. I watched Smith’s “Final Words” videos (all 24 of them). And I just finished listening to Natali’s side of the story on SModcast #107.

Having done this, I am rather pissed when I read and hear lies in the media. It seems that no journalist is trying to get the whole truth. Yes, SModcast #106 is an hour and a half. But just take a minute to look at Smith’s Twitter account. Or his blog. No one is denying that Smith is fat (and it is really unfair to suggest that he doesn’t know what he looks like). The point of all this, from what I understand, is to shed light on SWA operating procedures. There was no just cause to humiliate Smith or Natali. Yet the media is seeing this as a publicity stunt on Smith’s part to promote his movie.

Seriously?

The people making these unfounded, ridiculous statements have obviously never had to deal with weight before. Why would a fat person want to draw attention to their fat? THEY WOULDN’T!!!

Before another blog is posted, newspaper article printed, or television appearance booked, I think the media should get the whole story. Don’t just look at the surface and see a guy who has been fat his whole life. That is not what this about. Get your facts straight or get a new story.

And Christian Finnegan - FUCK YOU. Didn’t you used to be fat? And now that you’ve lost weight, you’re self-righteous. You should understand where Smith and all other fat people are coming from. You’re no better than the rest of the media - get your facts straight. You look weird skinny.

The Best, the Worst, and the Most Disappointing of 2009

2010-01-19T09:42:00.000-05:00

I see a lot of movies. Obviously. So, it’s extremely difficult for me to formulate best and worst lists of a given year. Figuring out what tops each list is easy. I knew far before year’s end which movies would hold the top spot of each of the lists below. I ruminated on these lists for days. Yes, I’m sure some of your favorites didn’t make the cut. I don’t care. I’m not going to be bullied into including some talk fest starring Hollywood’s favorite bachelor just because it’s getting Oscar buzz.

In my humble opinion...

The Best:
1. (500) Days of Summer
2. Inglourious Basterds
3. Zombieland
4. The Hurt Locker
5. Fantastic Mr. Fox
6. The Brothers Bloom
7. Watchmen
8. Sherlock Holmes
9. I Love You, Man
10. Confessions of a Shopaholic

The Worst:
1. Halloween 2
2. Avatar
3. The Men Who Stare Goats
4. Duplicity
5. Where the Wild Things Are
6. Year One
7. The Great Buck Howard
8. The Ugly Truth
9. Nine
10. X-Men Origins: Wolverine

The Most Disappointing:
1. Where the Wild Things Are
2. Year One
3. The Men Who Stare At Goats
4. The Great Buck Howard
5. X-Men Origins: Wolverine
6. New York, I Love You
7. Funny People
8. Adventureland
9. Public Enemies
10. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Allison @ The Movies

2010-01-18T19:22:00.002-05:00

At the end of 2008, I set a goal for myself - to see 100 movies in theaters in 1 year.

On January 2, 2009 I started my journey to 100. The road was long and arduous. At times, I didn’t think I would make it. I missed some movies I really wanted to see. I saw quite a few that I consider mere stepping stones to my goal. I, at times, faced ridicule and persecution from those who did not understand my goal. I did find support in a faithful few.

I am proud to say that on December 31, 2009, I saw my 100th and final movie of the year. Achieving this goal made me realize that not only will I met this goal in 2010, but I will exceed it.

I will also document my moviegoing experiences here.

In Honor of Christmas

2009-12-24T15:01:00.004-05:00

In honor of Christmas, I am posting a list of my 10 favorite Christmas movies. This list is not a traditional one - you won't find It's A Wonderful Life here. Some of the movies listed below are standard holiday fare, but my favorites... well, let's just say that if you read this blog, you'll know what to expect from me.

1. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)

2. Die Hard (1988)

3. The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)

4. Santa Claus: The Movie (1985)

5. The Ice Harvest (2005)

6. Home Alone (1990)

7. A Christmas Story (1983)

8. P2 (2007)

9. National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (1989)

10. Trapped in Paradise (1994)

Road to Nowhere

2009-11-30T10:40:00.001-05:00

Set in a post-apocalyptic America, The Road follows a nameless Man (Viggo Mortensen) and Boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee) as they make their way through a wasteland searching for the coast. Teaming up to bring Cormac McCarthy’s novel of the same name to the big screen, writer Joe Penhall and director John Hillcoat create a disturbing meditation on mankind and human nature.

The Road is bleak and grim. The world is a skeleton of its former self. The sky, the earth, and even the ocean are ash gray. The environment that the characters live in and fight against is believable. In fact, it’s downright scary. Based on the elements we see on the screen (and even some of what’s offscreen), The Road is successful in selling the idea of an apocalypse hitting America.

Mortensen does an incredible job as the Man. He becomes the role, leaving you to think that he is capable of doing anything to protect his son. Who really stands out in The Road is Smit-McPhee. Obviously the role is a demanding one, not your typical child role, but Smit-McPhee is quite impressive with his show of range and depth. He is able to portray the Boy as a hardened survivor while still keeping an air of innocence about him.

However good the acting is, I have to say The Road has a few flaws. I guess my biggest qualm is that The Road is rather boring. Hillcoat continually introduces us to conflict and takes it nowhere. The plot is merely driven by the Man and the Boy’s journey to the coast. I get that the film is really an uplifting story to inspire, but I could have used a little action. I’m not talking about explosions (though, I do LOVE explosions); I would have liked to see something come of the murder committed by the Man near the start of the film. And what about the those Gollum-esque creatures being stored in a cellar? Or the people keeping them there? I feel as though that Hillcoat had ample opportunity to liven up the story and he let it go by the wayside.

The performances are great, the general concept is interesting, but The Road is dull and depressing. In short, The Road is only okay.

"Bah! Humbug!" Indeed

2009-11-24T22:25:00.001-05:00

For their latest effort, Disney has teamed with Robert Zemeckis to bring A Christmas Carol back to the silver screen and in 3D to boot. The epic holiday classic stays true to Charles Dickens’ story of the same title. The film follows Ebenezer Scrooge (voiced by Jim Carrey) as he is visited by three ghosts - Christmas Past, Present, and Yet to Come (all voiced by Jim Carrey) - and is shown the error of his ways. After seeing some very frightening things, Scrooge seeks redemption and tries right his wrongs.

Yes, the 3D effects are quite impressive. The vocal talents, Carrey, Gary Oldman, and company, do an excellent job. Did you really expect anything less? This is Disney making A Christmas Carol. Of course it is good.

But I must say that this film is misleading. Don’t get me wrong - I believe in the message. I just don’t think this film is for kids. It’s been marketed as DISNEY’S A Christmas Carol. What parent wouldn’t take their kid to see it? They shouldn’t. This is one of the most disturbing films I have ever seen. It’s certainly not for kids (at least not anyone under the age of eight).

This version of A Christmas Carol is frighteningly dark, and unnecessarily so. Yes, this is a tale of redemption. But did Zemeckis have to take us to such an extreme before having Scrooge see the light? Even the visit from Marley (voiced by Gary Oldman) is appalling. I appreciate the reality that Zemeckis is trying to portray, but will the target audience - children, right? - appreciate it or even understand it? I mean, the Ghost of Christmas Present dies! The Ghost of Christmas Present always reminded me of Santa Claus; I don’t want to see Santa Claus die. And what is with those dead kids - Ignorance and Want?

I don’t have a problem with the dark mood of A Christmas Carol. I do have a problem with the way it was marketed. If a film is dark and disturbing, have some of that in the trailer. Don’t mislead people into thinking that it is fine holiday fun for the whole family, because it isn’t. I suggest keeping the little, little kids at home and watching The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992) instead.

Human Nature, Like Diaz’s Acting, Is Flawed

2009-11-16T16:34:00.003-05:00

A family strapped for cash receives a visit from a mysterious stranger offering them one million dollars if they press a button that will result in the death of someone they do not know. The button is pressed (obviously) and all sorts of craziness ensues in the thriller The Box - what you would expect from the man responsible for Donnie Darko (2001).

Writer/director Richard Kelly offers us another bizarre story with his latest effort. As if the mere concept of The Box isn’t enough, there are plenty of strange subplots involving married couple Arthur (James Marsden) and Norma Lewis (Cameron Diaz), as well the stranger Arlington Steward (Frank Langella). Aside from the NASA business, happenings at school or weddings, and all of the nosebleeds, Kelly presents a moral dilemma for the audience to mull over. The story is an intriguing one, and due to the lack of explanation at the start of the film, Kelly is able to draw us in.

Marsden gives an excellence performance as NASA employee and astronaut hopeful Arthur Lewis. Diaz, on the other hand, is not so good. I commend her for going outside of her comfort zone of romantic comedies, but is this the best she can do? Her performance is flat and her Southern accent is enough to make me drive a screwdriver into my ears.

I must say that some of the best acting in the film is from the extras. I don’t think I have ever seen creepier people. Because of the pace and general narrative of The Box, Kelly is urging his audience to solve the mystery so to speak. You can’t help but focus on the background trying to pick out clues. The extras and even the set help to add another layer to The Box.

The Box is an atmospheric, eerie thriller with plenty of commentary on human nature. It’s bizarre and confusing, but fun. Whether you agree with the suggestion Kelly is making about human nature or not, it's something to think about (and I think I failed the experiment). The Box will keep you on the edge of your seat.

Goats Don't Float My Boat

2009-11-08T15:11:00.006-05:00

The Men Who Stare At Goats follows reporter Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) as he gets the scoop on the U.S. Army’s First Earth Battalion, in other words psychic spies. As the story progresses, Bob finds himself on an adventure with his source Lyn Cassady (George Clooney).

Half the film is told through flashback. We see the origins of the First Earth Battalion, starting with Bill Django (Jeff Bridges), and how F.E.B fell to disgrace by way of Larry Hooper (Kevin Spacey). The other half the film is supposed to be a like a buddy movie revolving around Bob and Lyn. Despite the all-star cast, this movie sucks.

I’m going to be honest - I don’t really care for George Clooney. He is a constant disappointment. And I downright loathe Ewan McGregor. So half of the movie for me was rather annoying. The two don’t play off of each other well. The “jokes” fall flat; neither Clooney nor McGregor were remotely funny.

The one beacon of light that had the potential to save this movie is Jeff Bridges. I am sorry to report that even The Dude couldn’t help. While Bridges performance is the only good thing about The Men Who Stare At Goats, that’s really not saying much.

The Men Who Stare At Goats could have been funny if executed properly. All of the essential ingredients are there. I don’t like Clooney or McGregor, but they are good actors. Let’s not forget about Kevin Spacey - the man has two Oscars! So what went wrong?

It’s just not funny. I don’t even think I laughed once during this movie. Any one part The Men Who Stare At Goats that could have gotten a chuckle out of me was spoiled by the trailer. Is there anything worse than all of a comedy’s funny parts being shown in the trailer? Uh, probably not. Instead of wasting $10.50, I could have watched a loop of the trailer and laughed more.

I feel as though The Men Who Stare At Goats tricked me. I thought I was going to see a comedy; instead, I saw one of the most boring movies of my life! A comedy that isn’t funny will drag on for days - The Men Who Stare At Goats is no exception.

Terrifyingly Disturbing and Boring

2009-11-04T17:54:00.001-05:00

Antichrist (2009), written and directed by Lars von Trier, is without a doubt the most disturbing film I have ever seen.

After losing their child in a tragic accident, a couple, He (Willem Dafoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg), retreats to the woods to deal with their grief and work on their relationship. There, She grows increasingly more insane, or evil as it is suggested in the film, while He finds evidence supporting the notion that all women, specifically his wife, are evil.

First off, Antichrist is boring. I’m not a fan of nature and watching landscapes, so halfway through Chapter One I was losing interest. I get that Antichrist is being praised for its visual beauty, but I need a little more than the forest for a good movie.

Willem Dafoe is creepy, I think most people will agree with me on that. Are the numerous and graphic sex scenes necessary? Eww. And Charlotte Gainsbourg is no prize either. If I have to watch sex on screen with a bunch of strangers, can the actors at least be attractive and not creepy?

Did I mention the genital mutilation? There’s a fair amount of it. And you get to see it (unless you close your eyes like I did). Being a woman, I don’t think it is fair to say that all women are evil. Yes, we all have our moments, but not as extreme as She does. I will agree with He and, I guess, von Trier that She is evil. She may even be Evil.

Antichrist is truly horrific. I didn’t read anything about it before seeing it, so I thought it was going to be a regular horror movie. I was kind of hoping for some cheesy form of the devil even. What I actually saw is a horror film, but not in the sense that it’s fun to be scared.

I’m not offended by the suggestion that women are evil. I was, however, offended by the images I was bombarded with. Antichrist is so graphically disturbing I can’t even put it into words. If you want to feel the pain and torture of another human being, then see Antichrist. Otherwise, skip it.

My Favorite Scary Movies

2009-10-31T09:06:00.006-04:00

In honor of Halloween, here is a list of my favorite scary movies:

1. The Monster Squad (1987)
Best. Movie. Ever.

2. Halloween (1978)
Purely and simply evil.

3. Poltergeist (1982)
I grew up with a very large tree just outside of my bedroom window, so...

4. A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
Remember when Freddy was scary?

5. The Lost Boys (1987)
Max's vamp face literally scared the piss out of me.

6. When a Stranger Calls Back (1993)
That guy coming out of the brick wall gets me every time.

7. Lady in White (1988)
I still get creeped out by Melissa's song.

8. Drag Me to Hell (2009)
Awesomely gross special effects.

9. Grace (2009)
I love the transformation Madeline goes through to protect her baby.

10. The Birds (1963)
Birds freak me out.

Ever Wonder What Happened to...

2009-10-28T10:17:00.002-04:00

Darius McCrary?

Who?

You may best remember Darius from “Family Matters” (1989-1998) as Edward “Eddie” James Arthur Winslow, one of my favorite TV sons of all time.

After being one of the stars of “Family Matters” for almost ten years, Darius was on several short lived TV shows and even appeared in some high profile movies. You may have seen him in 15 Minutes (2001) or even heard his voice in Transformers (2007).

You can see Darius on the silver screen once again in Saw VI (2009), out now.

Even In Death, Jigsaw Is Alive And Well

2009-10-24T17:17:00.001-04:00

Say what you want about the Saw franchise, but the formula works. In the latest installment, Saw VI follows Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) as he carries on the Jigsaw legacy and risks exposure of his chosen path.

It’s the same basic story line, people with questionable morals and lifestyles must find their way out of elaborate traps if they want to live. What keeps the franchise alive, I feel, is how the story is told. Through the use of flashbacks, you’re able to discover more about Jigsaw’s (Tobin Bell) past.

I don’t know about you, but I love Jigsaw’s backstory. It raises so many questions. Mainly, how did he score a babe like Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell)?

Because a Saw movie is spit out every year, seeing Saw VI is a good way to stay up to date with current events. In the opening scene, we see two loan officers forced to pay for their lives with a pound flesh; and the main plot focuses on a health insurance executive (Mark Rolston) choosing who lives and who dies by the same formula he used to decide which clients received coverage.

I really can’t fault the filmmakers for churning these movies out as often as they do. Movie productions create jobs, and not just for actors. So in keeping with the theme of the film, the production of Saw VI is, in way, trying to remedy the problems certain characters face in the film. And speaking of actors, what a great way to give someone their big break (or perhaps a second chance at fame)? I agree that the number of sequels is getting out of hand, maybe they’re not such a bad thing.

Let Him Finish What He Started

2009-10-19T16:34:00.002-04:00

After a plea bargain frees the man who killed his wife and daughter, Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) takes justice into his own hands by targeting all involved, including the district attorney. So ensues a cat and mouse game of Shelton killing everyone close to DA Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx), but how Shelton is pulling it off is the real focus of the movie (he worked for the CIA and is super smart).

Law Abiding Citizen is your basic revenge movie with awesome death scenes. And while the plot is engaging and will keep you on the edge of your seat, it is a completely unrealistic movie. I’m open to the idea of the CIA developing cell phones that kill people (one of my favorite kill scenes of the year!), but I highly doubt that the Philadelphia PD and a district attorney played by Jamie Foxx could out smart a CIA “brain.” I live just outside of Philly and I’m more than certain that this is impossible.

This is Law Abiding Citizen’s one flaw: writer Kurt Wimmer held his story back by being afraid to go where no one else in Hollywood has dared - he doesn’t kill Rice. Why?!

I don’t need a “happy” ending, one in which Shelton would have gotten away, but I would have liked to see Foxx’s character die. I guess to some, Law Abiding Citizen’s ending is a happy - Rice (who some would consider the good guy, but I don’t) prevails and gets to live happily ever after with his wife and daughter. But where is the justice for Shelton? I would have been content with Shelton killing Rice and then meeting his demise.

Law Abiding Citizen had the potential to be a great revenge/action flick, but falls short of greatness due to the ending. The plot and story start off strong, but the brevity in which the film is wrapped up and the manner that it is done in left me wanting more.

And keep your eyes peeled for Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter!

Wild? Yes. Good? I Wouldn't Go That Far

2009-10-17T11:13:00.003-04:00

I should probably start this by saying that I love Where The Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak, which is why I didn’t love Spike Jonze’s radical film adaptation. Am I the only person who read the book and watched the movie? What a disappointment!

After being sent to bed without dinner, Max (Max Records) runs away from home when he finds himself a sailboat. He, then, journeys to where the wild things are. After being made king of the wild things, Max and the wild things have a rumpus, but not really. The wild things just sort of hurt each other and scare Max.

Let’s start with Max. As my sister, a first grade teacher astutely pointed out, Max is an “ES” kid. That’s “emotional support,” meaning Max has issues. The kid is f’ed up. Sendak’s book portrays Max as creating a bit mischief one night; Jonze, on the other hand, has Max being crazy 24/7. Max needs to be sedated.

The wild things, particularly Carol (voiced by James Gandolfini), are scary. And I get it. They’re supposed to be scary. But there’s a fine line for a children’s movie (I mean, it is for children, right?). At one point, I thought Tony Soprano was going to have Max whacked over the fort. How disturbing was it for you when you saw KW (voiced by Lauren Ambrose) swallow Max and then spit him back out? I appreciate the symbolism - Max is “reborn” as a, hopefully, calm child - but it is really gross and weird.

Did I mention Where The Wild Things Are is boring? At an hour and forty minutes, Where The Wild Things Are goes on for an eternity. Never have I checked my watch so many times during a trip to the theater. Perhaps Jonze should have stayed true the book, in both content and length.

Yes, I know Sendak’s Where The Wild Things Are is only a few pages long and some pages don’t even have words on them. My favorite part of the book is how Max’s bedroom turns into the jungle. This seems to be important to Sendak too since he dedicated six pages to it. Jonze, being the visionary director that he is, has Max run away and that’s how he comes to be in a jungle. Nice message to send to kids: run away and you will find a whole new world that you can become the king of. And since Jonze is considered visionary, why not use his skills to transform a simple bedroom into the jungle? As for the wild rumpus, it looks absolutely awesome in the book - Max and the wild things dance in the moonlight and swing from trees. Funny, that’s not the rumpus I saw in the movie. Was there even a rumpus? I saw a lot of planning and talking, but no rumpus.

Where The Wild Things Are was my most anticipated movie of the year. Words cannot describe my excitement for it. Boy, was I disappointed. I understand that certain liberties had to be taken due to the lack of text in the book, but Jonze got carried away.

My advice to you: don’t take kids to see this movie, for they will surely be bored; and certainly don’t waste the money seeing it in I-MAX.

Zombies Are People Too

2009-10-03T17:24:00.001-04:00

When you watch a zombie movie, do you ever think about the actors playing the zombies? I didn’t either, until I saw Zombieland.

Now, I could go on about how Zombieland is one of the best movies I have seen all year (‘cause it is!). Or how I used to only like Woody Harrelson and now I love him. Or even how Abigail Breslin isn’t that annoying in this film. But I think it is more important to look at the zombies’ performance - specifically 406 (Amber Heard).

I can’t fault Amber Heard for working what she’s got. She is a very attractive girl, but I think she’s boring. Heard is a very safe actress and it seems she gets cast because a pretty blond. The roles she gets don’t require that much acting; Heard really only needs to look pretty and say a few lines. So when I saw Heard transform into a zombie and attack Jesse Eisenberg, I was blown away! How out of her element was she? She gave a great performance as a zombie. I am truly impressed at how convincing Amber Heard was. Amber, the next time you get offered a role that only requires you to be someone’s pretty girlfriend, pass on it and take something that’s an actual challenge.

Dear Rob Zombie,

2009-09-02T12:52:00.001-04:00

Please stop making movies. I am begging you. I understand that you are a whore and need money. I also understand that your wife is a whore and gets bored easily, so every couple of years you have to make a new movie to give her something to do. But, couldn’t you let her remodel the bathroom or something? Maybe she’s not the interior design type, so make an original movie at least.

I somewhat tolerated (meaning, I went to see your “film” to prove to myself that I was right in claiming that it would suck) your remake of Halloween (2007). And then you do this. Remake Halloween 2 (2009) and you don’t include one of my favorite death scenes - the hot tub murder. I will admit that you have a way with violence, so why not keep the hot tub murder?

Some may argue with me and say that this Halloween 2 is original. And to that, I would say: “Hardly.” Yes, you took the series in a slightly different direction than the original films, but by using the same characters and same basic plot you are not being original. The only original part of the movie would be all of the superfluous walking and violence from Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) in the first half of the movie. Not to mention, it was rather boring.

And what the fuck have you done to Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton)? She’s the final girl, for christ’s sake!!! What I enjoyed about the original Halloween series was that Laurie Strode was able to overcome her horrible past and have a somewhat normal life (until her past catches up with her, of course). This is why Laurie Strode is the ultimate final girl. You, Mr. Zombie, have removed everything good about Laurie Strode and replaced it with what I can only imagine as your ideal woman. I’m not going to make any apologies for my opinion - if you have 666 painted on the wall of your bathroom, maybe you deserve to be stalked and killed by your demented older brother. I have a really hard time feeling sorry for someone like the "Zombie Laurie Strode" and her friends when they act the way they do.

And how dare you rewrite “history” so that Laurie Strode succumbs to the same fate as her “family”? And the open ending… I almost wish Laurie Strode had been killed so that there would be a clear end in sight. What’s next… a remake of Halloween 3: Season of the Witch? Just stop with the remakes already. You are only emabrrassing yourself. If you want to impress me, make Werewolf Women of the SS. I would love to see that in theaters, at least then I would know that you don’t actually take your movies seriously. And I would also appreciate it if your colleagues would stop giving you encouragement (this means you Eli Roth).

One last thing, allow me to congratulate you on making one of the darkest movies I have ever seen. No, I don’t mean “dark” in terms of mood. Your latest atrocity is probably the most poorly lit movie ever. Don’t you get off on gratuitous violence? And yet you shroud the violence in darkness. I am not one that needs violence to make a movie entertaining and certainly not scary, but it just seems like a waste to me. You undoubtedly spent a lot of money on the effects that went into these sequences of violence, leaving me confused as to why you wouldn’t take the time to properly light the shot so your audience would be able to decipher what is happening.

Sincerely,
Allison

P.S. - Danielle Harris, after four Halloween movies, I think it is safe to say you won’t be back for a fifth film (I hope). You owe it to yourself to move on. Roles you were taking when you were eleven years old probably aren’t right for you when you are 32.

Top 5 Movies of the Summer

2009-08-27T19:02:00.006-04:00

1. (500) Days of Summer
I absolutely love love love this movie! It was so cleverly done. Awesome cast, amazing soundtrack, and BEST editing!

2. Inglourious Basterds
Inglourious Basterds probably would have taken the top spot if there had been a lot more violence and a lot less subtitles. Come on, Tarantino. Are you going soft in your old age? American audiences go to the movies so they don’t have to strain themselves reading. We want more Bear Jew!!

3. Drag Me to Hell
I have nothing bad to say about this movie. Thank you Sam Raimi for proving to me that PG-13 movies can be awesome. One of the most fun theater experiences I have had… ever!

4. The Hangover
I laughed so hard, I cried. The Hangover is outrageously funny and the chemistry between Bradley Cooper and Zach Galifianakis is undeniable.

5. The Hurt Locker
I like explosions. And Jeremy Renner. I was pleasantly surprised to see the use of Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes kept to a minimum - they really could have overshadowed the amazing, yet relatively unknown, cast.

It's Called Film TRANSLATION

2009-08-04T16:59:00.002-04:00

I liked Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. Not my favorite film in the franchise, but certainly not the worst. Yes, I am a fan of the books. Yes, I have read The Half Blood Prince… twice. In fact, I completed my second reading of the novel a mere hour before seeing the film.

There were quite a few discrepancies between the book and movie, but it is called film TRANSLATION for a reason. Haven’t you ever heard the phrase “lost in translation.” This is what it is referring to. It’s impossible to take every aspect of a 650 page book and make it into a concise, watchable movie. It’s up to the screenwriter and the director to decide what needs to be in the movie.

And in the case of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - well, I think people should stop complaining. The translation of the book into film was traditional - meaning that the same overall story and main ideas remained, but certain things were changed, left out, or even added to help make the film easier for viewers to watch, enjoy, and understand the concepts from the book.

Would I have done things differently with the movie version of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince? Of course! But I can’t change it. Making a movie of this scale takes more than getting some teenage Brits and filming them casting spells and making out. If you think you can do a better job of translating my favorite Potter book into a movie, by all means, be my guest. Until then, don’t judge the brave souls who took it upon themselves to make a great movie just because it didn’t match the book. Boo-hoo.

Ever Wonder What Happened to...

2009-07-26T11:23:00.002-04:00

Jonathan Ke Quan?

Who? My favorite Vietnamese import!

You probably best remember Quan as Short Round in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) or as Richard “Data” Wang, one of the lesser appreciated Goonies, in The Goonies (1985).

After The Goonies, Quan went where so many child stars have gone before him - to an abysmal television show - "Head of the Class." Quan’s star fizzled out when he appeared in Encino Man (1992) with fellow Goonie Sean Astin.

So, what’s he been up to lately? Quan has mostly been behind the scenes, producing and even doing some stuntwork. Too bad he didn’t make the cut for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008).

No Applause Necessary

2009-07-25T13:33:00.000-04:00

Why do people feel the need to clap as the credits of a film begin to roll? Yes, there are special circumstances, but I am talking about a regular showing of a regular film at a regular theater… with regular people. Only these people are not “regular.” They are douchebags.

They feel the need to fill my last moments with a film with their cacophony. You are so quick to appauld this wonderful film, yet you walk out of the theater before the first cast member’s name has even scrolled out of sight. From your applause, I will assume that you enjoyed this film, whether it be that soon to be Oscar-nominated biopic or the hipster flick of the year, but you don’t care who made it. Sure, you stayed long enough to see the stars’ names, but there is more to making a movie than acting. Stay for the credits or don’t (I personally would prefer it if you left the theater as soon as possible), but if you applaud - even for a split second - at least find out who the best boy is.

Why I Don’t Like Seth Rogen

2009-07-24T10:44:00.007-04:00

It’s not that I don’t like him, I just don’t think he is a very good leading man. In a supporting role, Rogen proves to be the right bit of flavor to any movie. But when it comes to being a leading man, the same formula just doesn’t work.

What Rogen does isn’t really acting. He recycles. Rogen is constantly playing the same character and his allure is beginning to dull. And doesn’t it seem that he isn’t really acting to begin with? To me, it’s as though he is playing himself. The sarcastic dick routine is starting to bore me. Am I the only one who feels this way?

There are just too many similarities between Cal (The 40 Year Old Virgin, 2005), Ben Stone (Knocked Up, 2007), Dale Denton (Pineapple Express, 2008), and Zack Brown (Zack and Miri Make a Porno, 2008) for me to believe that these characters are independent of each other. I’ll be the first to admit that Cal was probably the best part of The 40 Year Old Virgin, but the success of that character is contingent on the fact that it was a minor role. I guess what I am trying to say is that Seth Rogen is best in small doses.

As I started writing this, I began to think it would be unfair to claim that Seth Rogen only plays himself. And then it dawned on me that he wrote Superbad (2007) and the character of Seth (Jonah Hill) is based on him. Am I the only one who sees the similarities between Superbad Seth and all the characters that the real Seth plays?

I will admit that I was impressed with his acting ability in Fanboys (2008). If he has to immerse himself in ridiculous costumes, make-up, and accents to be a convincing actor, is he really leading man material? And yes, I did enjoy Observe and Report (2009), a rare example of the sarcastic dick routine succeeding in the role of Ronnie Barnhardt. But what sets Ronnie apart from other Rogen roles is that the movie and supporting cast were not urging me to like him. His cringeworthy performance made me feel sorry for Ronnie, but I didn’t get the sense that I was supposed to like him.

I will never understand the urge to continually pair Rogen with beautiful blondes. I can accept the pairing of Rogen with Katherine Heigl as pivotal to the plot of Knocked Up; however, it wasn’t very realistic. How was the addition of Angie Anderson (Amber Heard) pivotal to the plot of Pineapple Express? Rogen’s need to write his character a beautiful, barely legal girlfriend in Pineapple Express was superfluous to the plot and only demonstrated Rogen’s need to glorify himself and fulfill a fantasy that would never happen in real life.

I want to like Seth Rogen. I enjoy his movies. I do, however, feel he needs to take an acting class. I may have passed judgment too quickly. If Rogen can make me believe that he is a real actor in the upcoming Funny People (2009) - I will take back most of what I said. Until then, I remain unimpressed.

Allow Me to Extend my Sincerest Congratulations

2009-02-07T11:06:00.002-05:00

I’ve got to hand it to the filmmakers of My Bloody Valentine (2009). They remade a bad ‘80s movie, made it even worse, and got me to go see it. I don’t care about the 3D effects (they weren’t that impressive), this movie sucked. The acting was bad and the dialogue was even worse.

And Kerr Smith, grow up. If your career didn’t take off with “Dawson’s Creek” or Final Destination, My Bloody Valentine is the proverbial nail in the coffin.

However, this is not your stereotypical slasher flick. No, it is much more than that. This movie is breaking through the barriers that once held back the supporting cast of a slasher flick - Deputy Martin (Edi Gathegi) lives to see the end credits! Why is this so groundbreaking you ask? Because everyone knows that the black people are the first to get killed in slasher flicks. Not only did Deputy Martin survive, he was never even implicated as a suspect. Congratulations Edi! You deserve it.

Since the Death of Pat Morita, There has Been a Void for Asian-American Actors

2009-02-04T10:12:00.007-05:00

Aaron Yoo has filled that void for us.

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past two years, you know who Aaron Yoo is. Now, you may not know his name, but you certainly know his face.

It’s not fair to think in stereotypes, but when all the young Asian characters in films start to look alike, you may start to do just that. I first noticed Yoo in 2007’s Disturbia and again in Rocket Science (2007). It was painful to see him in the trailers for 21 (2008), but surprising to see his range in The Wackness (2008) and Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist (2008), probably the least disappointing aspect of the movie.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m happy that he’s getting so much work, but aren’t there any other relatively young Asian actors that need work? And it’s really not fair to have me think that all Asian guys look alike - how was I to know that he was going to appear in all these films?

Yoo will be in theaters again in the unfortunate remake of Friday the 13th (2009) out on February 13th.

And the Snubs Are...

2009-01-28T19:15:00.004-05:00

Is the Academy insane? What is with year’s Oscar nominations?

Hellboy II: The Golden Army has one nomination and Wanted has two. That is just absurd. There is not one aspect in either film that is Oscar-worthy - and I like bad movies! How is it possible that Wanted got two nominations and In Bruges only got one?

And Slumdog Millionaire, really? Why are there so many people enamored with this film? It was okay, but I wouldn’t have nominated it for that many awards, and certainly not Best Picture.

And speaking of Best Picture, how appalling were the rest of the nominations for that category? Milk absolutely should have been nominated, but not the others. Any film that is painful to sit through (and not just because the old people behind you won’t stop talking) should not be nominated. Case in point: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Maybe if the boring parts had been edited out and it only ran for about 1 1/2 hours, I would consider it for a nomination.

Instead of nominating less than worthy films for Best Picture, perhaps good films should have been nominated - like In Bruges, Revolutionary Road, and The Wrestler. These films were snubbed for Slumdog Millionaire and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. It is a travesty.

I think it is safe to say that the biggest snubs of the year were for The Wrestler and Revolutionary Road. Both should have been nominated for Best Picture and Best Director; and Revolutionary Road should have been nominated for Best Actor/Actress and Best Adapted Screenplay.

Maybe it should be called “Confessions of a Teen IDLE”

2009-01-25T17:27:00.002-05:00

Vh1’s new reality show “Confessions of a Teen Idol” is an absolute snooze-fest. Were these the best teen idols they could find?

And Eric Nies… since when is he a teen idol? Being a cast member of the first “Real World” and host of "The Grind" doesn’t make you a teen idol. Now that he is nearing forty, I guess Nies got too old for the MTV demographic. Instead of switching over to VH1, maybe he should consider getting a real job.

And the Nominees Are...

2009-01-24T14:42:00.006-05:00

Here are some of the most disappointing Oscar nominations... EVER! How did Wanted get two nominations?

* - denotes who I would like to win
** - denotes who I think will win, however undeserving (not all are undeserving, just some - like Slumdog Millionaire)

BEST PICTURE
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon 
Milk *
The Reader 
Slumdog Millionaire **

BEST ACTRESS 
Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married **
Angelina Jolie, Changeling
Melissa Leo, Frozen River 
Meryl Streep, Doubt *
Kate Winslet, The Reader

BEST ACTOR 
Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn, Milk
Brad Pitt, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler * **
Richard Jenkins, The Visitor

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams, Doubt * **
Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona 
Viola Davis, Doubt
Taraji P. Henson, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Marisa Tomei, The Wrestler

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR 
Josh Brolin, Milk
Robert Downey Jr., Tropic Thunder 
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt 
Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight * **
Michael Shannon, Revolutionary Road

BEST DIRECTOR 
Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire **
Stephen Daldry, The Reader 
David Fincher, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button 
Ron Howard, Frost/Nixon 
Gus Van Sant, Milk *

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY 
Milk **
Frozen River
Happy-Go-Lucky 
In Bruges *
WALL-E

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY 
Slumdog Millionaire **
The Reader
Frost/Nixon
Doubt *
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM 
The Baader-Meinhof Complex (Germany) 
The Class (France)
Departures (Japan)
Revanche (Austria)
Waltz with Bashir (Israel)

BEST ANIMATED FILM 
Bolt
Kung Fu Panda 
Wall-E **

BEST ART DIRECTION
Changeling
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button **
Dark Knight 
The Duchess
Revolutionary Road *

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Changeling
Slumdog Millionaire 
The Reader 
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button 
The Dark Knight * **

BEST FILM EDITING 
Someone should probably let filmmakers know that a big part of editing is knowing what to cut from a film, especially since all these films are too long.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button 
The Dark Knight * **
Frost/Nixon 
Milk 
Slumdog Millionaire

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Australia 
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button 
The Duchess **
Milk 
Revolutionary Road *

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE 
The Betrayal (Nerakhoon) 
Encounters at the End of the World 
The Garden
Man on Wire 
Trouble the Water

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
Slumdog Millionaire, "Jai Ho"
Slumdog Millionaire, "O Saya” 
Wall-E, "Down To Earth"

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button 
Defiance
Milk * **
Slumdog Millionaire 
WALL-E

BEST MAKEUP 
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button * **
The Dark Knight
Hellboy II: The Golden Army

BEST SOUND EDITING 
The Dark Knight
Iron Man
Slumdog Millionaire
Wall-E 
Wanted

BEST SOUND MIXING
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button 
The Dark Knight
Slumdog Millionaire
Wall-E
Wanted

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS 
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button 
The Dark Knight * **
Iron Man

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM
Auf der Strecke (On the Line)
Manon on the Asphalt
New Boy 
The Pig 
Spielzeugland (Toyland)

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM
La Maison en Petits Cubes
Lavatory - Lovestory
Oktapodi 
Presto
This Way Up

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT FILM 
The Conscience of Nhem En
The Final Inch
Smile Pinki
The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306

Ever Wonder What Happened to...

2009-01-21T13:48:00.005-05:00

Max Casella?

You probably best remember Max from his long stint on "Doogie Howser, M.D." (1989-1993) as Vinny Delpino or maybe as the fast-talking Racetrack Higgins in the classic Disney musical Newsies (1992).

After fading into obscurity, Max started doing voice work. You may have recognized his unique voice in the Jak & Daxter video game series (2001-2006).

You can catch Max’s latest efforts for another shot at fame in Leatherheads (2008) or, more recently, Revolutionary Road (2008) as Ed Small, a coworker of Frank Wheeler’s (Leonardo DiCaprio). But watch closely… blink and you’ll miss him!

The Best, the Worst, and the Most Disappointing of 2008

2009-01-18T11:23:00.005-05:00

In my humble opinion...

The Best:
1. In Bruges
2. The Wrestler
3. Revolutionary Road
4. Son of Rambow
5. Pineapple Express
6. Milk
7. The Wackness
8. The Dark Knight
9. Funny Games
10. Tropic Thunder

The Worst:
1. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
2. Mirrors
3. Wanted
4. Untraceable
5. The Promotion
6. The Happening
7. Burn After Reading
8. Nick & Norah’s Infinite Playlist
9. Saw V
10. Hellboy II: The Golden Army

The Most Disappointing:
1. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
2. Nick & Norah’s Infinite Playlist
3. Pride and Glory
4. Definitely, Maybe
5. Run, Fatboy, Run
6. Hamlet 2
7. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
8. Charlie Bartlett
9. Smart People
10. Zack & Miri Make a Porno

Check This Out

2008-11-27T12:42:00.002-05:00

Click here to see a list of the Top 100 Crime Movies of All Time according to Laura Milligan.

Do you agree with this list? Did some of your favorites not make the cut?

Instead of Going to See...

2008-11-27T11:36:00.009-05:00

something like Twilight, how about going to see something with substance?

I understand how seductive the latest fad can be, being a part of the Harry Potter craze myself. But from what I understand, Twilight is lacking. I have not yet seen this movie myself, but it is getting mixed reviews. Clearly, it has nothing on the Harry Potter franchise.

I am not advising you to wait until the summer to see a good movie. Why not see the entirely too long Changeling? With the exception of Clint Eastwood not knowing what to leave on the room cutting room floor, this was a great film. And don't miss Eddie Alderson's outstanding performance!

Or how about Role Models? Come on, Paul Rudd stars, how could you pass that up? Role Models is one of the funniest movies I have seen all year. What a makes this movie rise above other comedies released this year... NO SETH ROGEN!!

You could always see The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. This is a very powerful film, but if you are interested in the Holocaust, it's not to be missed.

Any of the films mentioned above would be much better choices than Twilight. I will be honest, I was kind of excited about Twilight; I've never read the book, so I was under the impression that it is a legitimate vampire movie, like The Lost Boys. But don't be fooled - it is actually a love story that happens to involve a vampire. Lame.

Ever Wonder What Happened to...

2008-11-27T11:25:00.010-05:00

Patrick Muldoon?

Who?

You may best remember Muldoon from his 3 whole episodes on "Saved by the Bell." If not, let me refresh your memory. He played Jeff, the creepy manager at The Max who broke up Kelly and Zack, only to break Kelly's heart. What a jerk!

So what has Pat been up to lately? What else... Lifetime movies!! You can see one of his latest acting efforts in Panic Button, also starring Holly Marie Combs and Traci Lords.

No Weisz, No Dice

2008-08-30T10:31:00.007-04:00

Do you like mummy movies? What do you like about them? Does the mummification process excite you? Or are you fascinated by ancient Eqyptian culture? If you answered “yes” to the above questions, don’t see The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor.

I wanted to like this movie. I loved the first two installments of The Mummy franchise. And it was released on my birthday. Happy Birthday to me!!

But as much as I was anticipating this movie, I was greatly disappointed. In fact, before the opening credits rolled I thought to myself, “Why am I here?”

A really long time ago, a cruel Chinese emperor (Jet Li) enlisted the help of a witch (Michelle Yeoh) to make him immortal. He kills her lover and she places a curse on him, immediately turning him into a mummy (but not really, he more or less just turns stone).

The O’Connells are back, just not the way I’d like them to be. Rick (Brendan Fraser) and Evelyn’s (Mario Bello, formerly played by Academy Award winning actress Rachel Weisz) son Alex (Luke Ford) finds the tomb of the dragon emperor, resulting in his parents unwillingly releasing the mummy. The family is helped by Evelyn’s brother (John Hannah), the witch and her daughter (Isabella Leong). Terrible action scenes follow, littered with poor special effects and even worse dialogue.

To sum it up, don’t see this movie. It was awful.

It had not one redeeming quality.

This movie did not take place in Egypt. There was no mummy. Brendan Fraser is old and weird looking now. And no Rachel Weisz! Bello is a poor substitute for such a talented actress. But, at least Weisz had the good sense to know that there were problems with the script.

Then Again, I'm Not a Fanboy

2008-08-30T09:46:00.008-04:00

I finally watched Spiderman 3. It wasn’t as bad as I thought it was going to be, until the dancing started. WTF?

I had heard that this movie raped someone’s inner-child, but that's not why I put off watching it for so long; I didn’t want to see Harry Osborn’s (James Franco) demise.

Even with a half scarred face, he still looked good. Nice try, Spidey.

Well... did you spot him?

2008-08-19T13:31:00.006-04:00

Did you? You can stop going crazy searching.

Now that The Dark Knight is no longer #1 at the box office (it's about time), I’ve decided to post the screen captures of Matt Skiba’s silver screen debut. He appears in the crowd of people just before the shot is fired through the glass at Reese.

Sorry for tormenting you for so long.

They don't stand a chance, but...

2008-08-09T01:19:00.002-04:00

You should vote for Alkaline Trio to be nominated for Best Rock Video at the MTV Video Music Awards.

Dear Johnny Depp,

2008-08-08T16:22:00.009-04:00

Please stop.

I think I speak for the general public in saying that we have grown tired of the eccentric roles you gravitate towards. I do understand that roles such as Captain Jack Sparrow and Sweeny Todd are something that you have always filled (case in point: Edward Scissorhands); however, don’t you think you have gone a little overboard? Was it necessary to permanently disfigure your body with those pirate tattoos? One would think that you learned your lesson with ink:

I am making this plea with you, not for my sake, but for the other actors. I think it is fair to say that you upstage all your co-stars, except maybe Robert Englund. Rumors are circulating that you may be the next Riddler in the newest Batman franchise. Would this be fair to Christian Bale, who has now twice stood by and had his moment stolen by others less deserving? In preparation for Pirates of the Caribbean, you tattooed your skin, grew dredlocks, and even had metal fixed to your teeth. Where will you stop? Can we expect you to rock a question mark suit and tell riddles now? Do us all a favor and decline the Riddler role.

Stop making movies. You have served your purpose. We thank you for your efforts, but that will be all for now.

Watch This Now

2008-07-29T21:35:00.002-04:00

Click here to watch the first trailer for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince!!!

Only One Way to Kill a Werewolf: Family Matters in Stephen King’s Cycle of the Werewolf and Silver Bullet

2008-07-28T16:57:00.016-04:00

In Stephen King’s 1983 novelette Cycle of the Werewolf, illustrated by Berni Wrightson, a sleepy 1976 Maine town must face the terrifying truth that the recent rash of murders each month have been perpetrated by a werewolf. Adapted for the screen by King himself, Cycle of the Werewolf was translated into the film Silver Bullet by director Daniel Attias in 1985. While certain aspects of the novelette were dropped and others emphasized for the screen, the one constant in both texts is the family dynamic. Through each text, we can see the community of the town as a large family, with Reverend Lester Lowe (Everett McGill) as its patriarch. Within this collective family, King portrays a biological family that has more than its fair share of dysfunction. The Coslaws - crippled Marty (Corey Haim), alcoholic Uncle Al/Red (Gary Busey), resentful sister Kate/Jane (Megan Follows), and overbearing parents (Robin Groves and Leon Russom) - must push past the problems within each individual relationship to realize that having a solid family bond is the strongest weapon. From the two families depicted in King’s texts, it is made plain that family must stick together to overcome their monsters.

In each text, community acts as a family for its residents. Described as a “little Maine town where baked bean church suppers are a weekly event, where small boys and girls still bring apples to their teachers, where the Nature Outings of the Senior Citizens’ Club are religiously reported [on]” (King 14), the reader can get the sense that Tarker Mills is a close-knit community where everyone knows his or her neighbors. The town, however, is not a family simply because it is a small town. Rather, Tarker Mills acts as a family because it is headed by a Town Council that acts as pseudo parents in the novelette. Due to this dynamic of a parental Town Council and its people being a community of brothers and sisters, it is only natural that some residents of Tarker Mills, those that are considered Other, be excluded; in other words, every family has its black sheep.

Otherness, according to Peter Hutchings, connects “notions of repression and projection” (96). In his book The Horror Film, Hutchings cites critic Robin Wood to categorize children as one of the major forms of Other in film (96). In the grand family scheme of Tarker Mills, the most likely Other is Marty. As a crippled child who has been condemned to a wheelchair his whole life, Marty is either looked down on or pitied by the townsfolk, including his own parents and sister. Being in a wheelchair, Marty looks forward to summer for one reason - Fourth of July fireworks - but with a savage beast on the loose, the Town Council has mandated a town curfew and, thus, cancelled the lightshow. Marty tries to explain the significance of the fireworks:

Do you see what I mean? Do you get it? It hasn’t got anything to do with being crippled, like Katie says, or getting the fireworks all mixed up with America, like Granpa thinks. It’s just not right when you look forward to something for so long … it’s not right for Victor Bowle and some dumb council to come along and take it away. Not when it’s something you really need. Do you get it? (King 63)

The injustice suffered by Marty, both the wheelchair and the cancellation of the fireworks, is rectified by his Uncle Al (Uncle Red in the film), as he gives the boy provisions to create his own firework display. This act of defiance not only undermines the Coslaw parents, but it also undermines the authority of the Town Council. Uncle Al is acting in the sneaky manner that children often do when a sibling or fellow child is in need.

Throughout the film, community as family is stressed abundantly more so than in the novelette. The main attributing factor to this is the emphasized role of Reverend Lowe. While the novelette portrays the Reverend as a man of the cloth that no one would ever suspect of being the killer, the film depicts him as being a vicious father figure weeding out the bad seeds in his family. Differing from the novelette, the film offers reason behind why each victim was killed - the town drunk, an adulterer on the verge of suicide, an abusive father, a bully. While the novelette downplays the Reverend’s role as a father figure, due to the fact that he is unaware he is a werewolf until late summer, Lowe takes pleasure in his killing his last victim - Milt Sturmfuller, town librarian and abusive, adulterous husband. King gives insight into the monster’s mind: “Lowe will read the account of the murder in the newspaper and think piously: He was not a good man. All things serve the Lord” (King 113). From the selection of townsfolk the Reverend kills, it seems that he was putting his children in the ultimate time-out for being bad.

The Reverend is not all bad, brutal and savage maybe, but while in human form he does act as the town’s patriarch. It’s interesting to see how the Reverend serves his town and its people in his everyday life; after killing innocent people, he performs their funeral mass. King’s concept of a sadistic father giving comfort supports the notion that family must band together during trying times, for family is all that anyone has.

Within this familial community is the rather dysfunctional Coslaw family. The complex, interpersonal relationships among the family members is the weapon that allows them to defeat the beast. The novelette offers deep insight into Marty’s otherness: his father is uncomfortable around him, his mother is short with him, his sister resents him. In fact, Marty’s relationship with his nuclear family is not mentioned much, leaving the reader to assume that his Otherness keeps him isolated from the family, even after defeating the werewolf. The film, on the other hand, depicts a vastly different, while very similar, family dynamic to novelette’s. The parents are there and force their children to interact, making Jane her brother’s keeper. It is obvious that this burden has aged Jane in way, so much so that she identifies with her parents enough to cast his uncle in an unflattering light: “Yeah, that’s your great uncle - a chronic drunk” (Silver Bullet). However, as the desperation of the town’s situation becomes more apparent with the death of Marty’s friend Brady Kincaid, Jane begins to see Marty as a brother rather than a cross to bear. From this progress, Jane bands together with her brother to track down the werewolf after Marty’s encounter with the beast. Partially due to the desire to prove him wrong and partially due to the belief that he is right, Jane sets out into town to find the man that Marty had wounded. If not for their strained relationship, as most older/younger sibling relationships go, Jane and Marty would not have been able to bond over the discovery of the man behind the monster and, in the end, defeat him.

The most important, and healthy, relationship in both the novelette and film is between Uncle Al/Red and Marty. In both the larger scale family of the community and within the biological family, Uncle Al and Marty function as Other. In the film, “chronic drunk” Uncle Red has several divorces under his belt, causing him to be at odds with his own sister. Marty, the most obvious case for Other, is crippled and a child. Marty serves as the most oppressed character in the text. Even after a near fatal encounter with the werewolf, the people of Tarker Mills do not believe his story as Constable Neary explains about werewolves: “That shit’s for kids” (King 77).

Moving past their Otherness in relation to the family, Uncle Al/Red’s bond with Marty, along with Marty’s own Otherness, makes the boy into a vessel to kill the werewolf. As aforementioned, Marty’s personal fireworks display was provided by Uncle Al/Red, endowing Marty with the means to mark the werewolf for later identification. The wheelchair itself is a symbol to bring upon the destruction of the werewolf; created and named Silver Bullet by Uncle Red, Marty’s muscle car-like chair, metaphorically speaking, predetermines him to be the one to kill the werewolf. The chair also represents Uncle Red’s and Marty’s Otherness:

MARTY: Uncle Red took off the regular muffler, put on a cherry bomb.
TAMMY (Heather Simmons): What’s that?
MARTY: Blast pack. He said he’s making me a new wheelchair, a custom job. But now I don’t know. He’s getting a divorce, and he’s in the doghouse with my mom.
TAMMY: For getting a divorce?
MARTY: Well, it is his third (Silver Bullet)

This exchange properly displays how Uncle Red is alienated from society as well as family. Not to mention that Marty seems to be relishing in his uncle’s Otherness; he is almost boasting about his uncle not conforming to societal norms. Also, the chair, not only a mythical symbol, helps Marty to evade the werewolf’s deathly grasp several times. The use of the chair as a symbol in the film foreshadows that Uncle Red will also be the provider of the actual silver bullets. It is evident that both Uncle Al/Red and Marty have been ousted from the family and labeled black sheep due to their handicaps - alcohol and paralysis respectably. With the marked separation from community and family, it would seem that uncle and nephew grasped for the one thing they could reach, each other.

Tarker Mills and the Coslaws are strong family units. Certainly dysfunctional, but every family has its problems. With a looming Town Council, a sadistic father figure, and children who defy the laws of society, the people of Tarker Mills are able to overcome their differences, such as the father figure killing, to comfort one another and try to defeat the beast. Paralleling this notion is the Coslaw family; while the most vital members of the family - Uncle Al/Red and Marty - are cast as black sheep from the greater community, they also strained relationships with other family members due to their social status. However, the Coslaws’ Otherness and their familial relationships are the tools they employ to triumph in the end. It can be said that families need to have a difficult time relating to one another so that in their time of need, the bond which has been tested is strong enough not to break. Finally, from King’s two texts the take home message is that in times of great despair, even the most dysfunctional family will band together to defeat the beast.

Works Cited
Hutchings, Peter. The Horror Film. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2004.

King, Stephen. Cycle of the Werewolf. Illus. by Berni Wrightson. New York: Penguin Group, 1983.

Silver Bullet. Screenplay by Stephen King. Dir. Daniel Attias. Prod. Martha Schumacher. Perf. Gary Busey, Everett McGill, and Corey Haim. DVD. Paramount, 1985.

The only reason to go to the movies...

2008-07-25T15:20:00.005-04:00

As you continue to help The Dark Knight break all the records this weekend, be sure to keep your eyes peeled for Matt Skiba.

Yes, that Matt Skiba. Apparently, he is the biggest fanboy of them all.

Vote for Pat the Bat!!

2008-07-09T20:59:00.001-04:00

Oh, How the Mighty Have Fallen

2008-06-07T10:04:00.008-04:00

Do you ever watch a movie or TV show and think, “I’ve seen that person in something else”? And then it drives you crazy trying to remember what else they have been in.

The only thing more disappointing than having to look it up on-line is when you realize that their career is in the shitter. Take, for example, Julie Warner.

Who?

You may remember her as the charming, girl next door Michelle Brock in the timeless classic Tommy Boy (1995) or as Vialula opposite Michael J. Fox in Doc Hollywood (1991). Maybe you have seen her on such influential shows as “21 Jump Street” or “Party of Five.” She even had a small role in Flatliners (1990). With this resume, it seems that the sky was the limit.

But, I regret to inform you that her career has taken a turn for the worse. If you haven’t already seen her in a made for TV movie, look for her in Stick It as an angry stage mother.

She could have been one of the greats.

I Only Have Three Words...

2008-06-01T13:13:00.006-04:00

... see this movie. Son of Rambow is a true masterpiece. There is not one piece of superfluous plot. I have nothing bad to say about it.

You will fall in love with the characters. Son of Rambow is the best movie I have seen all year, and in the coming of age genre, it ranks among Stand By Me.

Nothing Strange in The Strangers

2008-06-01T12:41:00.009-04:00

In the dead of night, not so happy couple James Hoyt (Scott Speedman) and Kristen McKay (Liv Tyler) are terrorized by three masked maniacs (Kip Weeks, Laura Margolis, and Gemma Ward). What follows is the standard running, hiding, and unsuccessfully fighting back. Haven’t we seen this film before?

But I won’t list the similarities between The Strangers (2008) and other films such as Vacancy (2007) and Funny Games (1997, 2007).

In one way, The Strangers resembles Halloween (1978), and this actually helps the film. The Man in the Mask is extremely creepy and he has that Michael Myers head tilt down. I wouldn’t say that this movie is scary, but it certainly is creepy. Making it all the more creepy is The Man’s movements and the way he stares at his victims.

Also, what makes a movie scary is what you don’t see. Jaws (1975) was a lot scarier before you actually see the shark, right? The anticipation of what is just outside the frame adds to the suspense of the film.

After hiding in a bedroom and a closet and being told by her man to put shoes on, why did Kristen end up running into the woods barefoot? Who cares if girls run up the steps when they should be running out the front door - at least they were wearing shoes!

Reasons to see this movie: It’s genuinely creepy at times.

Reasons not to see this movie: It’s been done before and the ending sucks. And, what girl in her right mind would not accept Scott Speedman's marriage proposal?

Oh, Adam Arkin...

2008-05-30T10:37:00.015-04:00

... Man of many hats - actor, director, writer, football star werewolf. That’s right. Before Arkin starred in such timeless classics as Halloween H20 (1998) and Hitch (2005), he starred as Tony Walker, a goodnatured, football loving werewolf in the film Full Moon High (1981).

While in Transylvania with his father, Col. William P. Walker (Ed McMahon), Tony is forced out of their hotel room so that Col. Walker can have some alone time with the local women. In the streets of Transylvania, Tony hears violin music and is attacked by a werewolf. After returning to the U.S., Tony is responsible for his father’s suspicious suicide, losing the big game, and “nibbling” on more than a few high school girls.

He leaves town only to return decades later, posing as Tony Walker Jr., as his burden prevents him from aging. Upon his return, he immediately assimilates back into high school culture, attracting the attention of female students, sexually frustrated teachers, and his grown former classmates.

So why is this B rate movie different and more important than others?

First of all, it updates werewolf-lore. It has always been my understanding that when a person is bitten by a werewolf, that person becomes a werewolf also. However, 1950s Tony simply takes a bite out of girls’ asses to satisfy his hunger and these girls are not turned. We, the audience, are treated to seeing the exposed backsides as they are being bandaged.

More importantly, Full Moon High is the precursor to such classic films and television as Teen Wolf (1985), The Monster Squad (1987), and even “Full House.”

Ever notice that in 80s movies, athletes who become werewolves suddenly become better athletes? I’ve always been puzzled by this recurring theme in film. It is safe to say, although, that without Full Moon High, much of Teen Wolf’s plot would be missing.

As far as The Monster Squad is concerned, the basis of the plot cannot be attributed to Full Moon High. However, one of the film’s most memorable quotes can be traced back to its predecessor. Attempting to escape from Tony’s wolf form, Ricky (Joanne Nail) kicks him in the balls, momentarily injuring Tony. This method of attack can be seen again in The Monster Squad when Fat Kid (Brent Chalem) kicks Wolfman (Jon Gries) in the “nards.”

And “Full House”? Yes, even elements of “Full House” were first seen in Full Moon High. Bob Saget makes a cameo appearance as a sportscaster during the big game. All of you “Full House” fans will remember that Danny Tanner got his start in television as a sportscaster on the San Francisco news.

Writer and director Larry Cohen made a lasting mark on the film industry with this quintessential film. Oh, and did I mention that both Alan Arkin and Pat Morita make appearances in Full Moon High?

Ever Wonder What Happened to...

2008-05-17T16:03:00.007-04:00

Jackie Earle Haley?

Haley gained fame as a child star in the early 1970s. He made a lasting mark in the 1976 classic The Bad News Bears as Kelly Leak, the motorcycle riding outfielder.

So where did he go? The television guest spot wasteland, of course.

But with a face like that, he could not remain in anonymity for long. With those looks, he is the perfect actor to play the role of a child molester. Check out his performance in Little Children (2006).

Don't Be a Sheep - Skip Prom

2008-04-13T02:58:00.010-04:00

Spring and love are in the air. Graduation is in sight. What better way to commemorate the past four years of high school than the prom. As a rite of passage for most teenagers, prom night is not to be missed, unless of course you are considering to see the movie.

After watching her mother be murdered three years earlier, Donna Keppel (Brittany Snow) just wants to have one night of teenage normalcy. But on the night of her senior prom, sadistic killer Richard Fenton (Johnathon Schaech) who killed her family escapes from a mental institution to terrorize Donna further as he picks off her friends in an attempt to get closer to her. This plot seems standard for most slasher flicks, but Prom Night (2008) doesn’t have any redeeming qualities that other slasher flicks have.

While the quality of slasher flicks has been declining since their conception, the genre can be fun, entertaining, and even inspired. With the basic groundwork for the run of the mill slasher flick, director Nelson McCormick and writer J.S. Cardone should have been able to make a better movie.

It is supposed to be a slasher flick, yet most of the slashing takes place offscreen. As far as violence and gore go, Prom Night is one of the most disappointing movies I have ever seen. Violence and gore do not make a movie scary; no, these elements make movies entertaining. After being put through the torture of watching these characters celebrate their prom, I would have liked to see them get the horrific deaths they deserved. However, in order to achieve a PG-13 rating in an attempt to make more money, the film is devoid of the sort of massacre we have grown accustomed to.

Perhaps it is due to the lack of other classic slasher flick qualities that Prom Night does not have the gruesome deaths. In the horror genre, there are certain activities that teenagers should take part in to be deserving of their deaths, such as drinking, doing drugs, and having sex. It goes without saying that if a character does any of the above mentioned, he/she will most likely miss the final scene. Yet, there is no sex, no drug use, and one sip of an alcoholic drink. In the way the movie unfolds, one can say that Prom Night is an unconventional slasher flick, but did the filmmakers ever consider that the conventions work in not boring the audience?

Up and coming starlet Snow has absolutely no screen presence. Her performance was flat and she lacks the ability to show any emotion. Donna watched her mother get murdered, and Snow’s idea of conveying grief, terror, and even excitement is to cover her mouth with her hands. As far as launching her movie career goes, it would seem that Snow made a wise choice, as slasher flicks are notorious for launching the careers of many untalented actresses.

The supporting cast was just as bad as the lead. All of the actors had at one time been teenagers, so I have a hard time understanding why it is difficult to give a convincing performance as a teenager. The acting from these young starts was just pathetic. The only actor worth mentioning is Brianne Davis in the role of Crissy Lynn. While her role was very small, and therefore gave little opportunity to be a disaster, she was at least convincing.

The one positive result of this horrible movie is the return of Johnathon Schaech. Allow me to refresh your memory as to who he is: Schaech skyrocketed to fame in the role of Jimmy Mattingly in That Thing You Do, delivering lines such as “I quit… I quit. I quit.” As a sadistic killer Fenton, Schaech is a little creepy, but not at all scary. His limited screen time did not give him much opportunity to convince us of him being a crazed escapee with a sick infatuation, but I am willing to let that slide. I am just happy that he is still getting acting jobs.

This review was originally going to be an irate diatribe on how Prom Night (1980) never should have been remade. I do not support the remaking of any film, especially if Rob Zombie is directing. However, after I saw the 2008 Prom Night, I could not find it in me to call it a remake of a classic slasher flick. To call McCormick’s Prom Night a remake, would be to sully the original Prom Night and all who contributed to the film.

If you enjoy bad acting, worse dialogue and wasting your money, then see Prom Night and relive the best night of your life. But if you want to see a slasher flick done right, rent the original. Prom Night is justification for anyone to skip senior prom.

What Makes A Zed and Two Noughts Postmodern?

2008-04-09T09:10:00.010-04:00

Written and directed by Peter Greenaway, A Zed and Two Noughts serves as a postmodern film in many ways. The film tells the story of twin zoologists Oliver and Oswald Deuce who, after losing their wives in a car accident, try to come to terms with their grief through a study of animal decay. The two brothers begin an unlikely relationship with the driver of the car, Alba Bewick (Andrea Ferreol), resulting in Alba giving birth to a set of twins whom she believes to be fathered by both Oliver (Eric Deacon) and Oswald (Brian Deacon). Greenaway’s ability to fill his film with symbols, homages, and references to other works of art, from other artists and himself, and the ability to subvert high and mass cultures is what helps to make A Zed and Two Noughts an originally postmodern film.

One of the more confusing elements of Greenaway’s film is his use of floating signifiers. From almost the very start of the film, the audience is treated to an alphabet lesson from Beta (Agnes Brule), Alba’s daughter. Periodically, the narrative of the film shifts to Beta and any available adult reciting which animals the letters of the alphabet represent; this practice, of course, culminates in “zed is for zebra.” While the final letter can be connected to yet another meaningless symbol, the alphabet recital adds up to nothing. It would seem that Greenaway is setting the alphabet up to have an important significance, but by the end of the film, it would seem that alphabet is placed throughout the film to disseminate meaning.

Another floating signifier that Greenaway consistently placed in A Zed and Two Noughts was the zebra itself. Greenaway uses images, mention, and prints of zebras, even dressing Venus de Milo (Frances Barber) in zebra print heels and Caterina Bolnes (Guusje van Tilborgh) in zebra print underwear. From the zebra figurines that litter some scenes to Oliver and Oswald’s desire to record a zebra’s decomposition, Greenaway, again, sets the viewer up to believe that the idea of the zebras will lead to something more. However, the film comes to close and nothing has been learned from the study of decomposition, resulting in further complication of what the zebra represents.

In A Zed and Two Noughts, Greenaway pays homage by recreating scenes and images. One of the most recognizable of these homages is that to Frankenstein. Just after the crash at the start of the film, Alba, who has been injured in the crash, gets operated on. In the operating room, the surgeon is looking over Alba as if she were his creation, as he was able to save her by amputating her leg. Even more so reminiscent of Frankenstein is the raising of the shades on the windows. As Alba lies on the operating table attached to tubes and machines, the shades begin to rise, allowing light to fill the room. This suggests that the sunlight to Alba is equivalent to Frankenstein’s monster’s lightning. Also, the visual effect created by the rising blinds makes it seem that the entire room is moving, just as Frankenstein’s monster rose up from the lab.

During the course of the film, Alba becomes a monster of her own. Having lost her leg, Van Meegeren (Gerard Thoolen), her surgeon, fits her with an artificial leg. This addition to her body transforms Alba into a sort of cyborg before she has her other leg amputated. The idea of the cyborg is continually suggested in the film, as there is another character who has two artificial limbs and a legless gorilla that would be happier at the zoo with another limb.

A Zed and Two Noughts has some self-reflexive qualities as well. The most obvious of these is Greenaway’s reference to his own work. Just after the crash at the start of the film, a newspaper flashes detailing the crash that the killed the Deuce wives. However, it is in the stories framing the centerpiece that promotes Greenaway’s other films; the article headlines read “Architect Dies,” referring to Belly of an Architect, and “A Hot Bath Heart Attack,” referring to Drowning by Numbers. While both of these films were made after A Zed and Two Noughts, it does seem suspect that the articles can be connected to later Greenaway films.

Throughout the film, Greenaway makes very specific references to the paintings of Johannes Vermeer. The most obvious reference is through the character of Caterina Bolnes as “The Lady in the Red Hat.” In every scene featuring Caterina, she is dressed as the woman in the painting. During a scene in a restaurant, Caterina is positioned in front of a red wall while the rest of the establishment is a beige color; this back-coloring of Caterina helps her to stand out as the work of art Vermeer painted. However, the character’s role is not limited to referencing Vermeer; she also serves as yet another floating signifier. Caterina is in many scenes, and even when not present, other characters speak of her. The character drifts through the film, but does not help in offering insight into the already complicated film.

Furthering the connections to Vermeer is Van Meegeren. The character’s very name is an allusion to the man who tried to convince the world that there were more Vermeer paintings by imitating the artist’s style. In A Zed and Two Noughts, Van Meegeren acts in a similar way, by reenacting Vermeer’s paintings with human beings and taking a photo of the scene so he can later paint his own copy of it. Greenaway’s technique in doing this is to patching in images of Vermeer’s paintings.

The recreation of Vermeer’s paintings serves two purposes. First, by making Alba up, by way of her hair and costume, to stand in paintings such as “The Music Lesson,” “The Concert,” and “The Lady and her Maidservant Holding a Letter” Greenaway is not only referencing these paintings, he is also paying homage to Vermeer. However, it is through the reenactment of “The Music Lesson” that Greenaway’s purpose becomes clear. When sitting at the piano while recreating a classic piece of art, Alba plays the tune to “The Teddy Bears’ Picnic.” In this one scene, Greenaway is able to subvert high culture an mass culture. Alba is representative of high culture by making Vermeer’s art come to life; as this representation she is able to give a piece of pop culture, that gained notoriety as a children’s song, standing as high culture also. In pairing The Music Lesson with “The Teddy Bears’ Picnic,” Greenaway brings Vermeer’s painting down to the level of pop culture, while raising “The Teddy Bears’ Picnic” up to the esteem of high culture.

A Zed and Two Noughts is not the first film utilize the postmodern elements previously mentioned; however, it is in the way that Greenaway presents each postmodern aspect as a whole that helps his films to stand apart from others that use many of the same techniques.

It's not the Heat, It's the Humanity: Body Heat as Postmodern Noir

2008-02-27T23:49:00.007-05:00

Body Heat, the 1981 film written and directed by Lawrence Kasdan, serves as a postmodern film in many ways. The film follows lawyer Ned Racine (William Hurt) as he begins a torrid love affair with the married and very beautiful Matty Walker (Kathleen Turner). As the summer romance continues, the two hatch a plan to murder Matty’s husband, Edmund (Richard Crenna), in order for Matty to escape her loveless marriage and still benefit from her husband’s wealth. However, Ned and Matty’s love cannot last as the suspicious circumstances surrounding Edmund’s death come to light. The plot of the film seems standard, but Kasdan’s cinematic devices are able to give the concept a twist that helps the film succeed as a whole within the realm of postmodern film. Kasdan’s use of plot, settings, lighting, and even character types echo classic film noir, leaving the viewer with a sense of nostalgia.

In the simplest sense, Body Heat is a postmodern film because of its intertextuality; what makes the film postmodern noir is that it is a pastiche of Double Indemnity (1944), a classic noir film. The plot of Body Heat is almost identical to the plot of Double Indemnity, although some minor details such as professions and cause of death have been changed. In each film, a sultry blonde seduces a man with the power to ensure she will be a wealthy widow and convinces him to kill her husband. Kasdan’s decision to cast Kathleen Turner as Matty seems to be intentional. While Turner is not an exact copy of Barbara Stanwyck, who is considered to be the “prototypical noir femme fatale” (Smith 28), the physical similarities are undeniable. Kasdan also adds flare to his film by adding small touches that are reminiscent of Double Indemnity. In the scene when it becomes apparent that Ned is under Matty’s spell, he is presented with the gift of a hat. The hat may seem insignificant, but to those familiar with the film’s predecessor will note that it is similar to the hat worn by Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) in the film.

The events that take place in the film are reminiscent of Double Indemnity, but the convoluted plot is a characteristic of the classic noir films that preceded Body Heat. Filling the film with twists and turns, Kasdan is able to keep his audience and his characters guessing. In classic noir fashion, the biggest surprise of the film is foreshadowed when Ned greets Mary Ann Simpson (Kim Zimmer), a woman whom he mistakes for Matty: “Hey, lady. Want to fuck?” (Body Heat). His embarrassment masks the real reason why another beautiful blonde appears in the film; that reason, of course, is mistaken identity, or possibly that the two women consciously switched lives. This idea helps to convey the sense of paranoia at the end of the film. An imprisoned Ned is set in discovering the truth about his supposedly dead lover, being almost possessed by the far-fetched idea that a woman such as Matty Walker could have pulled off a con of this proportion.

Keeping with classic noir themes is that of betrayal. Most obviously, Matty betrays her husband by sleeping with another man and then plotting his murder to inherit his money. However, Matty does not stop there; she betrays the very person who helps her succeed in the demise of her husband - Ned. While it is not apparent at the time of Edmund’s death, it is revealed later in the film that phone calls were made repeatedly to Ned’s hotel room the night of Edmund’s murder. As Matty’s deception continually comes to light, it is suggested that she is the one who made the phone calls to Ned’s room in order to have him implicated in the murder.

While the film’s plot is a sendoff of one specific film, the settings of the film can be found in any number of classic noir films. The setting most pertinent to the notion of postmodern film noir are the offices in which Ned can be seen working. The mise en scene used in conjunction with the office setting is typical of classic noir. The low key lighting and smoky look of these scenes adds to the mysterious element of the film. However, in true postmodern fashion, this smoky element is poked fun at during a scene in which all but one character lights a cigarette. When offered a cigarette, Peter Lowenstein (Ted Danson) replies: “I don’t need my own. I’ll just breathe the air” (Body Heat). This comment firmly places the film within postmodernism, as it consciously acknowledges the film devices employed in the film.

The low key lighting used by Kasdan serves several purposes in the film. First, just as in the classic noir films that came before it, Body Heat’s lighting helps to convey the sense of the mystery that the plot itself also suggests. Accordingly, the use of low key lighting allows Kasdan to play with shadow, lending to bigger ideas of good vs. evil. In a key scene between Matty and Ned, Ned verbalizes the idea to murder Edmund while the two are in Ned’s office:

Matty: Ned, hold me. Please. Just hold me. Oh God, I love you. He left this morning. I just had to see you.
Ned: I know… Be very careful….
Matty: I am careful…
Ned: That’s good. You have to be careful now…
Matty: Why, Ned? What’s happened?
Ned: Because we’re going to kill him. We both know that. It’s what you want, isn’t it? We knew it was coming. It’s the only way we can have everything we want, isn’t it? That man is going to die… for no reason but we want him dead. He doesn’t deserve it. Let’s not ever say that. We’re doing it for us, and you’ll inherit half of everything he owns. That’s what the will says, right? That’s it, then. That’s it, then. We’re going to kill him, and I think I know how.
Matty: It’s real, then?
Ned: It’s real, all right. And if we’re not careful, it’ll be the last real thing we do. (Body Heat)

This film operates within the realm of postmodernism in many ways; in fact, this is the scene that is most like classic film noir. In the article “Eighties Noir,” Robert Arnett states:

… ‘80s noir uses many… shot[s] at ‘magic hour,’ the hour surrounding sunrise or sunset, when the sun is low to the horizon, casting long shadows, lighting the cloudscape, and in the city, filtering through the pollution to create a gold or reddish glow (127)

The lighting of the scene holds to true to several of Arnett’s points. First, the way in which the light filters through the windows helps to create the long shadows mentioned by Arnett. Also, the lighting of the scene is very dark, made even darker as Ned draws some of the blinds when he enters the office. The blinds that are left half-open bathe the two in equal light and shadows. The shadows of the blinds suggests the image of bars, perhaps of a jail cell, lending to the overall noir aspect of the film.

Also as the scene ends, music swells as the camera goes from a two-shot to a high angle in order to look down on its subjects. The elevation of the camera plays into the classic noir aspect due to the fact that the higher the angle of the shot, the more muted the colors of the scene become. This method makes the scene look almost black and white, giving the film a truly nostalgic feel that beckons to the 1940s.

Kasdan does not limit the postmodernity of his film to replicating methods of classic noir films. Rather, Kasdan incorporates pop-cultural aesthetics into Body Heat in the form of kitsch. In the scene mentioned above, the dialogue is very corny. The “I love yous” and forced guilt of plotting to kill a man are very vapid and surface, not to mention laughable. However, Kasdan is able to transform this kitsch into high camp by framing the dialogue with postmodern noir set and plot. Also, the dialogue would not have been successful in becoming camp if not for the breathy delivery of the lines.

In the sense that Body Heat is a pastiche of classic noir films, it is important to note that the film is littered with cliches from classic noir. One element of the film that can be considered a cliche is the attenuation of affect. That is to say that the characters lack any real depth; they are stereotypes. Matty is the perfect example of the femme fatale. As characterized by film director Brian De Palma, femme fatales are “fun characters, sexy, diabolical, leading us to our doom” (qtd. in Smith 28). Matty is all of these things; she oozes sexuality and draws men into her force field, only to destroy them in order to advance her station in life. Juxtaposed to Matty is Ned, Kasdan’s version of the vulnerable investigator. While Ned is a lawyer, not an investigator, he certainly is vulnerable to Matty’s feminine wiles. These sort of characters, distinguished only by greed, murder, and sex, are very stereotypical of the characters that were common during the classic noir period.

All of these elements of Body Heat add up to something more. Kasdan’s scriptwriting and directing decisions create an air of nostalgia in the film. While the film was filmed and set in the 1980s, it is near impossible to distinguish that time period from 1940s. Arnett claims that Body Heat is one of the postmodern noir films that acts as “recreation, nostalgia, and homage” (124). Through the direct pastiche of Double Indemnity, it is apparent that Kasdan is able to do all three of Arnett’s claims. In recreating the story of a previous film, Kasdan’s homage to the classic noir films certainly takes the viewer back to era that he is honoring. Through his homage to and pastiche of classic noir and countless other postmodern elements, Kasdan is solidifies Body Heat’s standing as a postmodern noir film.

Works Cited
Arnett, Robert. “Eighties Noir: The Dissenting Voice in Reagan’s America.” Journal of Popular Film and Television 34.3 (2006): 123-29.

Body Heat. Screenplay by Lawrence Kasdan. Dir. Lawrence Kasdan. Prod. Fred T. Gallo, Robert Grand, and George Lucas. Perf. William Hurt, Kathleen Turner, Richard Crenna, and Ted Danson. DVD. Warner Bros., 1981.

Smith, Gavin. “Dream Project: The Name of the Game is déja vu in Femme Fatale.” Film Comment 38.6 (2002): 28-31.

Academy Awards

2008-02-24T23:44:00.003-05:00

Here are the winners of this year's Academy Awards (the important categories, anyway), the nominees I thought should have won, and those I thought should have won whether or not there was a nomination. I am so happy There Will Be Blood did not win Best Picture.

Best Picture: No Country For Old Men / Juno / Juno

Best Director: Coen Brothers / Coen Brothers / Coen Brothers

Best Lead Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood) / Daniel Day-Lewis / Ryan Gosling (Lars and the Real Girl)

Best Lead Actress: Marion Cotillard (La Vie En Rose) / Ellen Page (Juno) / Ellen Page

Best Supporting Actor: Javier Bardem (No Country For Old Men) / Javier Bardem / Ben Foster (3:10 to Yuma)

Best Supporting Actress: Tilda Swinton (Michael Clayton) / Cate Blanchett (I’m Not There) / Cate Blanchett

Best Feature Length Documentary: Taxi to the Dark Side / / The King of Kong: Fistful of Quarters

Best Original Screenplay: Juno / it’s a tie between Juno and Lars and the Real Girl

Best Adapted Screenplay: No Country For Old Men / No Country For Old Men / No Country For Old Men

What Makes Mulholland Drive Postmodern?

2008-02-21T23:57:00.009-05:00

David Lynch’s 2001 film Mulholland Drive acts as a postmodern film in many ways. Lynch’s use of decentered narrative is the most abundantly postmodern feature of the film. We are to believe that the film is centered on the bond developed between Betty Elms (Naomi Watts), an aspiring actress new to Hollywood, and “Rita,” (Laura Harring) the only surviving victim of a car crash with memory loss, as the two attempt to solve the mystery of “Rita’s” identity. Parallel to this story is that of Adam Kesher (Justin Theroux), a film director who is being strong armed by those backing his latest film. While the film’s fragmented narrative is mostly interspersed scenes of the aforementioned stories, several scenes which appear to be independent from the rest of the film are included within the narrative frame as well.

The lack of a narrative line and the fact that most scenes act more as independent vignettes lends to the notion of a decentered narrative. Many of the individual scenes would be able to stand alone and probably make more sense than they do within the frame of the film. This lack of a narrative line also supports the self-reflexive quality of the film, in that it showcases Lynch’s control in how he wishes the viewer to comprehend the film.

In many scenes, there are floating signifiers to suggest the dissemination of the film’s meaning. Objects such as ashtrays and coffee cups are present in scenes during the dream portion and also during Diane Selwyn’s reality and flashbacks to suggest that most of the film was in her mind. Not only are objects used for this purpose, but locations and phrases, such as “This is the girl” are repeated throughout the film to properly convey the impact that they had on Diane Selwyn’s life. The reasoning behind the repetitive nature of objects, locations, and phrases is not clear until Diane Selwyn wakes, but once the film catches up to the present in the narrative, these repeated elements help to connect the fragmented scenes and make sense of the first two hours of the film.

The film’s use of flashbacks is pivotal to the narrative and is helped by such signifiers as the ashtray. Near the end of the film, Diane Selwyn’s flashback is a seamless transition from the present; however, Lynch’s placement of the ashtray allows the viewer to understand that they are watching a flashback. Also, during the flashback in which Camilla ends her affair with Diane, Diane experiences another flashback. This is further support for Lynch’s fragmented narrative that even the flashbacks cannot take linear form.

The sort of explanation that can be derived from the people, places, and things in the dream portion of the film is very reminiscent of The Wizard of Oz. The similarity is that both Diane Selwyn and Dorothy (Judy Garland) use people from their actual lives as characters in their dreams. In that sense, it is almost as if Lynch is paying homage to The Wizard of Oz through Mulholland Drive.

The fragmented narrative also supports the notion of the film being self-reflexive. While the end of the film can offer some, but not much, explanation for the fragmented stories, the first three quarters of the film that the viewer had become invested in remains a mystery. This is due to Lynch’s authorial intervention. Lynch’s film leads the viewer down many paths and just when the paths might meet, the film takes an entirely new direction. For example, in two scenes involving a hit man, it is alluded to that he may be after “Rita.” Talk of an accident and a “beat up brunette” suggest this; however, we do not see this man again until the very end of the film after Diane Selwyn wakes. More concrete evidence of Lynch not allowing the viewer to make sense of what is being viewed is his choice to keep separate Betty and “Rita’s” story from Adam Kesher’s. Even after placing Kesher and Betty in the same location, Lynch only allows the two to make eye contact before separating the stories again, sending Betty’s narrative to a place that will never make it back to Kesher’s.

The film’s use of kitsch as high camp is also a characteristic that makes it postmodern. The scene in which Betty and “Rita” run lines for an audition is the sort of kitsch one would find in a Lifetime movie. However, at her audition, Betty is able to transform herself and the scene she is reading for into high camp. The acting is so over the top that those watching the movie magic take place regard it as brilliant, thus making the kitschy, camp quality into something an elitist could appreciate.

The film can be considered a pastiche of film noir on several levels. First, the film is very nostalgic of the 1950s era, especially with the story taking place in Hollywood. However, while the film is nostalgic of that era, it is clearly in a contemporary setting. Also, Mulholland Drive echoes classic noir in the use of the detective plot during the dream portion of the film. Not only does the story have a noir feel to it, but some settings in the film are that of classic noir. For example, Adam Kesher is forced to seek refuge at Cookie’s motel and then must have a late-night meeting at a corral with the Cowboy. Also, locations such as the office that is the site of a botched hit and Club Silencio appear to be the sort of seedy locales used in classic noir films. However, it is interesting to note that at the same time as when the film’s use of classic noir methods begins to subside, is also the same time that a staple of film noir is introduced into the narrative. The detective plot is completely dashed with Diane Selwyn’s waking, but “Rita” is now the sultry, femme fatale Camilla Rhodes.

Lynch’s ability to combine many different aspects of postmodern film into one feature film is the sort of blend that firmly sets his films in the postmodern realm. Primarily though, it is through the use of a decentered narrative and nostalgic feel for film noir that Mulholland Drive is able to be categorized as a postmodern noir film.

Bruges Tips the Balance in Favor of Fun

2008-02-17T03:32:00.021-05:00

Colin Farrell may not have the best track record when it comes to his film choices, but by starring in Martin McDonagh’s latest effort In Bruges it is safe to say that he has redeemed himself. In this action packed comedy, chosen as Sundance Film Festival’s opening night selection, McDonagh, who served as both writer and director, keeps the bullets flying and the laughs coming with such comedy gold as Farrell karate chopping a midget (Jordan Prentice) in the neck.

Bruges may seem like an odd location for the setting of a film, especially one as wrought with vulgarity and violence as In Bruges, but the city is just as important of a character as the film’s stars. Located in the Flemish region of Belgium, the medieval city is a World Heritage Site as much of its architecture is well preserved. The picturesque city does not offer much more than sightseeing, and for some characters in the film this causes a problem.

After a botched hit, two contract killers from London, Ray (Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson), are sent to Bruges by their boss Harry (Ralph Fiennes) to lay low for a few days and await instructions. While Ken acts as a tourist and enjoys the sights and culture of the city, Ray is sullen due to the lack of excitement the city has to offer. After befriending Jimmy, a little person actor, and disregarding Harry’s orders, Ray and Ken find themselves in a bit of trouble that allows for many laughs and plenty of violence.

The film takes off running right from the start. I am not one that particularly enjoys narration in films, but the brevity and sporadic nature of Ray’s voiceovers allows the viewer to connect with the characters and dive into the action immediately. The film’s swift start sets the tone for the rest of the feature. There are no great lulls in the film. Most scenes have action or witty dialogue, and should a scene be lacking either, rest assured that the next scene will contain one if not both of the elements that make this film such a success.

Much of the success of this film can be attributed to writer and director McDonagh. Known best for writing Tony award winning plays, McDonagh’s ability to combine hilarious dialogue with life threatening violence sets this film apart from others. The dialogue in the film is quick, witty, and never feels forced. Farrell and Gleeson play so well off of each other that they truly become their characters. While the content of the dialogue is generally one liners from Ray, In Bruges’ serious undertones questioning life, death and morality give the audience a better chance to relate to those onscreen.

It is not just dialogue that helps In Bruges to achieve success; there is also the right amount of violence and bloodshed. Combining both gunplay and hand to hand combat, McDonagh sprinkles his film with an effective amount of violence at the right time. This film is not excessively violent; in fact, all the violence shown is essential to the story. McDonagh should be commended on his portrayal of the consequences of violence in his film. In far too many action movies do we see guns being fired repeatedly followed by no injuries or blood. All the violence in this film leads to realistic injuries or even death.

While the success of the film was in part to the well written screenplay, that alone will get a filmmaker nowhere without an able cast. In Bruges’ cast is limited, but topnotch nonetheless. Farrell’s portrayal of an unsure hit man with a need for entertainment and excitement is amazing. With this performance, I am willing to forget that I paid to see “Alexander.” He is so genuine in the role of Ray, the way in which he continually delivers line after line, the innocent look of fascination that possesses his face when he sees a midget, that the viewer cannot help but to identify and love him.

Gleeson playing opposite Farrell is movie magic. Gleeson’s performance as the wise, sage-like hit man was the perfect foil to Farrell’s Ray. Gleeson portrays Ken without the urgency that can be sensed in Farrell’s performance; that is to say that he completely embodied that jaded, ready and willing to change hit man. The onscreen chemistry between the two actors was somewhere between old friends and a strange father-son relationship.

Fiennes as the angry, ruthless boss was brilliant. Never have I heard the same vulgarity repeated that many times and with even more force than previously said. Fiennes was so convincing, the urge to kill was apparent in his eyes. One of the smaller parts, no pun intended, was filled by Prentice, an American dwarf actor. I have not seen such good acting from Prentice since Howard the Duck. His dry humor is welcomed to help the viewer fully appreciate the humor in the scenes he shares with Farrell and Gleeson.

This film is the perfect hybrid of comedy and action. With McDonagh’s excellent screenwriting and the perfect cast, In Bruges should be keeping theaters packed and audiences entertained.

Deconstructing Perfection: Voice-overs and Establishing Shots in American Beauty

2008-02-16T16:36:00.017-05:00

The 1999 Academy Award winning film, American Beauty, directed by Sam Mendes offers an unconventional look into the “American Dream” and the perfect suburban family unit. While in the midst of a mid-life crisis, Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) becomes aware of how monotonous and meaningless his life really is. He soon becomes infatuated with the friend (Mena Suvari) of his teenage daughter (Thora Birch), out rightly defying and humiliating his perfectionist wife Carolyn (Annette Bening), and rightfully so due to her extramarital affair.

The title - American Beauty - along with the tagline “… look closer” connotes an examination into the ideal life that we, as Americans, have been sold. Mendes and screenwriter Alan Ball introduce this theme by pairing establishing shots of suburban sprawl, that continuously zoom and focus on different characters with jarring voice-overs from Lester.

At the start of film, the setting of most of the action is established. Mendes fills his frame with an aerial view of a seemingly normal suburban town - cue the voice-over: “My name is Lester Burnham. This is my neighborhood; this is my street; this is my life. I am 42 years old; in less than a year I will be dead. Of course I don’t know that yet, and in a way, I am dead already” (American Beauty). Until the sarcastic tone of Lester’s voice-over fills our ears, nothing is out of the ordinary. In fact, this establishing shot shows the deceiving look of suburban perfection - houses and trees line the streets in a symmetrical way.

As the scene continues, Lester’s voice-over is able to take seemingly innocent images and actions to the other end of the spectrum. The beautiful image of Carolyn tending to her perfect roses is soiled as Lester explains how shallow and superficial she really is: “See the way the handle on her pruning shears matches her gardening clogs? That’s not an accident” (American Beauty). Carolyn’s intentional color coordinating of her gardening attire helps support the idea that appearance is everything to her, and from Lester’s tone, we are able to understand that a change will be made and her perfect image will soon be shattered.

Further on in the scene, the camera focuses on the family as a whole, with mother and daughter waiting, rather impatiently, for their patriarch. While they seem like the normal, average, middle-class American family, Lester’s all-knowing voice informs us otherwise: “Both my wife and daughter think I’m this gigantic loser, and they’re right…” (American Beauty).

All of these different focuses have several things in common: obviously Lester’s voice-over, but also the camera never stops moving. In conjunction with the tagline “…look closer,” the constant movement of the camera, throughout most of the scenes involving all or some of the Burnham family, but especially in the shots discussed above and still to come, further implies the examination of the ideal American life and how unsatisfactory perfection can be. According to Abby Freedman, writer for The Daily, a student newspaper of The University of Washington: “the pursuit of perfection necessarily ends in failure” (Freedman). With Lester’s self-proclaimed “loser-dom,” Carolyn’s single-mindedness of her flawless appearance, and the obvious cracks in the familial structure, Mendes and Ball are commenting that those who dedicate their lives to achieve perfection will be anything but. These characters that are at the status quo and meet society’s standards of being normal are miserable and, like Lester, are “dead already.”

Not quite half way through the film, we can sense a change in Lester. It seems he is going to be a more take-charge guy and try to make-over his life: “It’s a great thing when you realize you still have the ability to surprise yourself” (American Beauty). This short and sweet statement from our narrator marks something new. However, Mendes, interestingly enough, still pairs the voice-over with the same establishing shot of an aerial view of the suburban town. So this realization for Lester is a great thing because he has been stuck in this cookie-cutter life and the monotony of this suburban life has left absolutely no surprises for him. It is also worthy to note that after turning over a new leaf, Lester is seen running with his two homosexual neighbors, Jim (Scott Bakula) and JB (Sam Robards). From his tone and his actions in the previous and subsequent scenes, Lester is breaking out of this suburban standard; and according to societal standards, homosexual partners do not really fit the status of “normal.” Not only does Lester begin working out, but he also quits his corporate job and begins working the counter at a fast-food joint; while to society, Lester may be steering away from perfection, the farther away he gets from it, the more optimistic his voice-overs become.

The denouement of the film starts, yet again, with that aerial shot of the neighborhood and witty voice-over from Lester: “Remember those posters that said ‘Today is the first day of the rest of your life’? Well, that’s true of everyday, but one - the day you die” (American Beauty). A marked difference between this shot and the previous shots paired with Lester’s narration is the booming rock music. Prior to this shot, all of the establishing shots were rather melancholy; but, this music is loud and in your face. The upbeat vibes of this music help to characterize Lester’s changed views of his life. And while we, the audience, know that this day will be Lester’s last, we cannot help but feel happy for him that he has achieved what he wanted to become: he is so far from society’s idea of perfection, and yet so close to his own, that his demeanor and tone are noticeably “peppy.”

It is not until Lester’s untimely death do we get a completely sincere voice-over, implying that in order to succeed and break from the façade of “normalcy,” one must die: “I guess I could be pretty pissed off about what happened to me... but it's hard to stay mad, when there's so much beauty in the world… and I can't feel anything but gratitude for every single moment of my stupid little life” (American Beauty). This final thought is a lesson in morality. It is telling us to value the simple pleasures in life, like “watching falling stars… and yellow leaves” and our families. This “American Dream,” this idea of perfection is all based on appearances, the images we project, material possessions, and, of course, money. What Mendes and Ball are trying to convey, through Lester, is that perfection is not in how society views each other, but in how we view ourselves. While to most characters in the film, Lester seemed like a loser, especially once he started his employment at Mr. Smiley’s, we can see that once he cast off that image and those material possessions (with the exception of his Firebird) he becomes his own man and starts standing up for himself - he owns his identity. That is what I think is meant by “American beauty” - that is perfection.

Works Cited
American Beauty. Screenplay by Alan Ball. Dir. Sam Mendes. Prod. Bruce Cohen, Dan Jinks, Alan Ball, and Stan Wlodkowski. Per. Kevin Spacey, Annette Bening, and Thora Birch. Videocassette. Dreamworks, 1999.

Freedman, Abby. “American Beauty: Kevin Spacey is dead.” The Daily: The University of Washington Student Newspaper. 30 Sept. 1999. 28 Nov. 2006. .

Some Notes on The Shining and Film Translation

2008-02-16T15:58:00.022-05:00

The Shining (1980)

“The book is always better than the movie” (Cahir 13)

Screen Writers:
Stanley Kubrick (Lolita, A Clockwork Orange)
Diane Johnson (Le Divorce)

Director:
Stanley Kubrick (A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket)

Cast:
Jack Torrance - Jack Nicholson
Danny Torrance - Danny Lloyd
Wendy Torrance - Shelley Duvall
Dick Hallorann - Scatman Crothers

Plot:
Translated from Stephen King’s novel of the same name, Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining tells the story of the Torrance family - recovering alcoholic Jack, suspicious Wendy, and the very gifted Danny. After moving into the Overlook Hotel for the winter months, the size, responsibility, and remaining guests put a strain on the family, forcing them to face demons from their past that can only end in death.

Translating Literature into Film:
1. Literal Translation - “reproduces the plot and all its attending details as closely as possible to the letter of the book” (Cahir 16)
Some lines of dialogue are lifted directly from the novel:

Wendy: “I think I’ll have to leave a trail of breadcrumbs every time I come in” (King 105)

Wendy: “I feel I’ll have to leave a trail of breadcrumbs every time I come in” (The Shining)

2. Traditional Translation - “maintains the overall traits of the book (its plot, settings, and stylistic conventions) but revamps particular details in those particular ways that the filmmakers see as necessary and fitting” (Cahir 16-7)
Some small elements of the novel were changed to make a better, more succinct film. Others were changed due to technological limitations or at the request of others.

“He tried to explain about Tony, who they called his ‘invisible playmate’” (King 41)
Danny: Tony is “the little boy that lives in my mouth” (The Shining)

Room 217 = Room 237 (“Trivia for The Shining”)

Kubrick claimed having the topiary come to life would not work, so it was changed to a hedge maze (“Trivia for The Shining”)

Twin girls act as a way to convey the story of the former caretaker, but not with as much detail as King’s novel

3. Radical Translation - “reshapes the book in extreme and revolutionary ways both as a means of interpreting the literature and of making the film a more fully independent work” (Cahir 17)
Certain things in the film seemed to have been interpreted differently by the screenwriters and the actors than from how King paints in his novel.

Jack appears to be insane from the start of the film, even on the drive to the Hotel

The relationship between Jack and Danny was strained and distant, although the novel describes Danny as his father’s son

Jack’s obsession with the Hotel is portrayed mainly through the alcohol connection, rather than the Hotel’s history

The blood rushing form the elevator acts only as a cheap thrill

Food for Thought:
Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining function[s] as a literal translation of the first fifty pages of Stephen King’s book, only to metamorphose into a radical translation of King’s work” (Cahir 119).

“When you have a shorter piece of fiction, one of the things that's attractive to filmmakers is the idea, ‘We can riff on this. We can do more to it,’… It gives them wiggle room” (King qtd. in Breznican).

Works Cited
Breznican, Anthony. “King adapts to Hollywood.” USA Today. 21 June 2007. 07 October 2007. Academic Search Complete.

Cahir, Linda Costanzo. Literature into Film: Theory and Practical Approaches. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2006.

King, Stephen. The Shining. New York: Pocket Books, 2001.

Shining, The. Screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Diane Johnson. Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Prod. Stanley Kubrick and Jan Harlan. Per. Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, and Scatman Crothers. DVD. Warner Bros., 2001.

“Trivia for The Shining.” 07 October 2007. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081505/trivia

Shadow Sucks the Life Out of Vampire Buffs

2008-02-16T14:08:00.008-05:00

The 2000 film Shadow of the Vampire, directed by E. Elias Merhige and written by Steven Katz, is an obvious satire of the movie-making industry. Set in 1921, we are told the story behind the making of F.W. Murnau’s (John Malkovich) Nosferatu, including its eccentric actors, timid crew, and egomaniacal director. After traveling to Czechoslovakia, the crew is introduced to Max Schreck (Willem Dafoe), a method actor who only appears in full make-up, and who we soon discover to be a real vampire. While this film has moments of humor and macabre, the parts do not equal a successful whole whether it be not enough laughs or not enough fright.

As a saving grace for this film, I would consider Malkovich’s performance to be a misplaced jewel of genius. The several scenes in which Murnau directs his silent film actors are, sadly, some of the only humorous parts. The quietly rising approach that blasts into full-fledged madness in directing is something I feel only Malkovich could pull off. The rise and fall of fits behind the camera truly help to bring the black comedy aspect of the film to the front burner. Also, this portrayal of Murnau helps the contemporary viewer today to appreciate what a masterpiece the original Nosferatu is, if only for the stressful working conditions for the actors.

Another bit of spice to what may seem like a recipe for an overall good film is the character of Fritz Arno Wagner (Cary Elwes). Brought in as a replacement cinematographer, Fritz acts as a good equal to Murnau. Before the introduction of Fritz, Murnau was stealing all of the thunder during scenes in which the cameras were rolling. However, with Fritz thrown into the mix, writer Katz is given more room to work with dialogue, which helps the performances of both Malkovich and Elwes.

As far as the monster goes, I was disappointed with Dafoe’s portrayal of Max Schreck. I am a huge Willem Dafoe fan, going all the way back to Streets of Fire (1984); with this performance, however, I was hoping for something frightening. The comic aspect is brought to camera beautifully. Dafoe is able to make Schreck and vampires in general seem absolutely ridiculous, and therefore make anyone afraid of vampires feel ridiculous. From the hand gestures to the devouring of the bat and to the horrible screen acting, Dafoe comes off as a comic genius. Scenes in which Dafoe’s acting could have been frightening seem to be upstaged, in my opinion, by either the supporting cast and their making light of the fact that Schreck is a real vampire or even the dingy set and props.

A major problem with this film, and most vampire films I see, is the failure to adhere to a strict set of rules I have formed over the years about vampires in general. I consider myself to be a horror movie buff, having started viewing them at an early age, and always find myself disappointed with monster movies, those about vampires especially, when certain things do not add up. Before even viewing this film, I had a firmly set notion of a let-down due to the fact that vampires’ images do not register on film. While the concept of a vampire playing the role of an actor playing the role of a vampire is fascinating, it is highly unlikely. I know vampires do not really exist, but I do wish for a standard set of rules, one day, when writing and filming about vampires. It would help keep the fantasy alive for the five-year-old in me.

From cast and concept, it would certainly seem that Merhige had a surefire hit on his hands, but as aforementioned, the wonderful parts do not equal a successful whole for me. Out of context, that acting is phenomenal; but, within the film it fails to satisfy a need to be entertained. When watching films about vampires, I really want to be scared, and while this film made me laugh, however infrequently, I certainly was not scared by Dafoe’s monster or Malkovich’s god complex.

Halloween

2008-02-09T12:16:00.035-05:00

“‘78 was the right time for a safe scare”
John Carpenter, qtd. in Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film

1978 was the right time for safe scare. You might even say that ’78 needed a scare. To fulfill this need, master of horror John Carpenter delivered with one of the scariest, most groundbreaking films of all time - Halloween.

Halloween is a groundbreaking film for many reasons. Mainly, it was a film that spawned an entire genre - the slasher flick. Carpenter picked up where Hitchcock left off, taking the lone killer with a knife a step further. According to Amy Jones, writer/director of Slumber Party Massacre: “It’s a classic which spawned many afterwards… It’s a template in the horror genre…” (Going to Pieces). If not for Halloween, there would be no Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream, or any of the underrated B movies that filled my childhood.

What makes this a lasting film in the horror genre is not because it was the first to have a man killing people with a knife. In fact, it wasn’t the first film to use this antagonist. Halloween remains as one of the most highly regarded films because of who the man with the knife is - Michael Myers. I think Dr. Loomis said it best: “What was living behind that boy’s eyes was purely and simply evil” (Halloween). But to put it into an industry perspective, Jeff Katz, director of development at New Line Cinema, had this to say: “Michael Myers is the hand of God. He’s a force of nature” (qtd. in Going to Pieces). These men are suggesting that Michael Myers is just evil; he cannot be stopped because he is not driven by any real motive. It is in his nature to kill.

You are probably wondering why I would be writing about a film that is 30 years old. Well, this past summer I had the displeasure of seeing Rob Zombie’s “re-imagining” of Halloween. Yes, someone actually remade this landmark film. I am not sure why Zombie felt the need to do so, but I have my theories.

One of the scariest elements of the original Halloween was because of Michael Myers. Not because he kills people and appears to have no weakness. What is scary about Michael Myers is that her came from an average American family from the midwest. The actor chosen to play Michael Myers as a child was adorable; he looked so sweet and innocent. This makes the movie scary - the idea that evil can reside in such an appealing shell. Halloween was not about a guy killing teenagers. Halloween was about evil being able to strike anywhere. Which brings me to Zombie’s first strike: family dynamic.

The family in the original seemed to be your pretty basic American family - loving, supportive, shocked that their young son could kill his sister. This idea is what scares many who view the film. Now Zombie’s re-imagining offers a less standard American family. He provides us with a stripper for a mother (which I can see only as a reason for Zombie to put his wife in a film), an abusive, alcoholic step-father, a promiscuous, foul-mouthed sister, and a rather disturbed pre-teen who gets bullied at school and at home - he will be our Michael. I don’t mean to attack him, but what was Rob Zombie thinking? Did he really think that providing the viewer with about 45 minutes of his wife in various states of undress and a young boy being the victim of bullying would make the film scary? It didn’t; it ruined the concept. Of course I would think that a child coming from this sort of domestic sphere would grow up to kill people. Anyone placed in that situation would have serious issues. It is not scary to think that the kid from the wrong side of the tracks could kill people; rather, it is scary to think that someone from a good home with loving parents who looks to be about 6 years old could kill someone.

I consider this film, if you could call it that, to be a failure because of the way it bastardizes the original. Zombie took a genuinely scary film and made it into a gore-fest. I think that is a huge problem with horror today. The gorier the film does not always equal a scarier film. The lack of gore in the original film is quite remarkable. Owner of K.N.B. EFX Group Greg Nicotero had this to say: “There is maybe one scene where a character is pinned against a cabinet in the kitchen and you see the knife sticking out and it’s all about Michael Myers sort of looking quizzically at the dead body” (Going to Pieces). Similarly, Greg Katz commented with “The scariest moments came wit the tilt of a head” (Going to Pieces). What these men are getting at is that blood is not an issue, nor are the murders. Michael Myers’ reaction to the result of his brute force is what makes the film scary.

Conversely, Zombie felt that the more blood and violence, the scarier the film. In the set up to why Michael is the way he is, we see him brutally murder four people, whereas in the original, only one person is killed and you barely see any of the actual murder. I think Zombie is just catering to a select group of sick freaks that enjoy watching people be beat to death with baseball bats. He seems to think that violence is the key to a scary film, whereas Carpenter knew that a lack of reaction would scare the audience more.

What would a discussion about Halloween be without a mention of Laurie Strode, our favorite final girl. According to Carol Clover, the final girl’s “smartness, gravity, competence in mechanical or other practical matters, and sexual reluctance set her apart from the other girls and ally her, ironically, with the very boys she fears or rejects, not to speak of the killer himself” (qtd. in Hutchings 202). What was that last part again?: “sexual reluctance.” That’s what I thought. So why is Zombie’s Laurie Strode dry-humping her friend and moaning about how she needs a boyfriend so she can get some? I will give you that she does not have a boyfriend like her friends do, but the original Laurie Strode showed no desire to have one. The new Laurie Strode is eager to give away her virtue. I don’t see myself in this new Laurie Strode at all; she doesn’t seem like a real person, but rather Zombie’s fantasy about what teenage girls do when their friends set them up on dates. According to Amy Holden: “The crucial, central performance is Jamie Lee Curtis’ performance. It’s brilliant. She looks like a human being. She creates a true character that the audience very strongly identifies with” (Going to Pieces).

All of that said, I cannot think of one redeeming quality for Rob Zombie’s Halloween. The family dynamic was off, there was entirely too much violence, and our heroine could not match the original. So why did Zombie remake this film? Honestly, I think just to put his wife in it.

I cannot hold my tongue when I see a bad film. I spread the word that this was definitely a film that could be missed, and I actually encountered some resistance. My brother and sister, my own flesh and blood, paid to see this film after I told them that it was horrible. I used to think that the three of us had similar taste in film; after all, we were raised on the same horror movies. I will never be able to explain these two that I call siblings. I felt betrayed when they actually suggested that our mother see this film. Do they not know her at all? As I rattled off my laundry list of complaints, desperately trying to convince my mother not to see this film (I was successful, by the way), my brother countered with the simple fact that Halloween had been #1 at the box office. What does that even mean? That most people who attended films that weekend saw Halloween. Maybe they left with the same reaction that I had; Rob Zombie should not have been allowed to do this. But don’t take my word for it. Tom Savini, known for his special effects makeup, agrees that the highest grossing film at the box office in any given weekend is a moot point:

Why would something like Blair Witch make $120 million dollars, you know? There are slasher movies that make a lot of dough, that doesn’t mean they’re great, you know. That means a lot of people are going to see them… It was great because it made a lot of money - no. That’s not a criteria (Going to Pieces)

Teeth's Bark Worse Than Its Bite

2008-02-09T12:04:00.018-05:00

One of the greatest stories of feminism and revenge ever told is the offbeat horror/comedy Teeth. First time writer and director Mitchell Lichtenstein puts a new twist on an old myth to deliver a film that is able to have its audience laughing and cringing at the same time.

The premise of the film is based around the vagina dentata myth.
While this myth has been documented in several different cultures, the facts are the same: the hero of the story must conquer a woman with a toothed vagina. The myth feeds into male insecurities of castration and warns against the dangerous nature of women. Revamping the old story for the big screen, Lichtenstein turns vagina dentata into a coming-of-age horror flick with a bit of female empowerment by making the villain of the myth the heroine of the film.

As a member of The Promise, a teen abstinence group, high school student Dawn O’Keefe (Jess Weixler) has a hard time coming to terms with her body’s physical changes. Things get more complicate when Dawn is attacked by a fellow Promise member (Hale Appleman) and it is discovered that there are teeth growing in her vagina. Dawn sees her uniqueness as a curse; however, she soon learns that her curse can be used to her advantage to seek revenge and thwart would-be rapists.

Weixler’s performance as the reserved, soft-spoken Dawn is the film’s strongest feature. Having won a Special Jury Prize in 2007 for her performance, Weixler immediately establishes a connection with the audience through her portrayal of Dawn. With believable fervor while delivering an abstinence speech or just the look of horror on her face when her curiosity gets the best of her, Weixler’s Dawn is a character that anyone who has gone through puberty can sympathize with. Even when the story takes a turn for the worse and we are to believe that after having sex with a classmate (Ashley Springer) Dawn has transformed into a nymphomaniac, Weixler is able to make a seamless transition from innocent teenager to a woman seeking revenge and knowing how to get it.

Most notably from the supporting is John Hensley in the role of Brad, Dawn’s stepbrother. Hensley’s constant scowl and hatred towards the other characters provides the viewer with the understanding of the disfunction that has been building in the O’Keefe home. Hensley’s disturbing performance as the bad boy who lusts after his stepsister can be felt through the tension between Weixler and Hensley onscreen.

While the premise for Lichtenstein’s film may seem horrific to many people, the film, however, is able to make light of the nightmarish situations that Dawn must go through. Teeth is probably one of the only films to have equal laughs and jeers during a rape scene. This may seem impossible, but Lichtenstein’s method is so unusual that it works. Pairing ridiculously funny dialogue with the heinous images of rape allows the viewer to laugh, when otherwise it would be unacceptable.

Not only was Lichtenstein’s screenwriting successful in making rape less horrific, his directing also played a part. The use of blood, or lack thereof, allows Dawn to remain pure and untouched by her attackers and sexual partners. Understand that dismembered body parts and blood are something that the men in Dawn’s life have to deal with, but due to Lichtenstein’s decisive directing, blood never sullies the heroine of the film.

Teeth is a film not to be missed. While the premise of the film may seem shockingly horrific, the witty dialogue and outstanding acting make that horror easier to watch. The efforts from both Lichtenstein and Weixler should be appreciated for what they are worth on the big screen.